From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 1 00:29:09 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:29:09 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back - Slytherin Perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180173 > > bboyminn: > > What bothers me, and what I would like JKR to clear up, is > that she opened the concept of the Houses joining together, > then never followed through on it. I needed just the briefest > reference to one student who saw Voldemort in charge as a > bad thing. But it has to be a student. We have Slughorn and > Snape as 'good Slytherins', but i needed a student, just one. Pippin: Regulus Black. If there is a Regulus in Harry's generation, Harry would not know about him, for the same reason that no one in Regulus's generation knew about Regulus. Regulus hid the extent of his work against Voldemort too well. Only if JKR gets around to writing about AS will we hear about the Regulus of Harry's day. Harry had a hard enough time dealing with people from other Houses who joined the DA for Slytherinish reasons; he would never have accepted a Slytherin on that basis, and the Slytherins have a lot of experience in knowing where they're not wanted. Bboy: Voldemort in charge would have been an economic disaster, and any reasonably wise Slytherin would have known it. Pippin: Economic disaster for some is always economic opportunity for others. Sad to say, the confiscation of Jewish- owned property was a windfall for the average German and the confiscation of Muggleborn property would doubtless have had a similar effect in the WW. If Muggleborn businesses close, their customers will go elsewhere. Florian's ice cream parlor was gone, but did anyone go without ice cream? Not that we heard. As for trading with Muggles, that was handled through the goblins, who know that Voldemort and his servants keep their treasure at Gringotts just like everyone else and won't want things too disrupted, will they? There were plenty of Slytherins who disowned Voldemort for Slytherinish reasons when it was safe to do so -- the trouble is they rejoined him for the same Slytherinish reasons when he returned. Pippin From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Tue Jan 1 00:35:47 2008 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:35:47 -0900 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherins come back - Slytherin Perspective In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <64E2A1E6-8122-4C63-BA77-10A49C64DC75@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 180174 On 2007, Dec 31, , at 15:29, pippin_999 wrote: > Pippin: > Economic disaster for some is always economic opportunity > for others. Sad to say, the confiscation of Jewish- > owned property was a windfall for the average German and > the confiscation of Muggleborn property would doubtless > have had a similar effect in the WW. If Muggleborn businesses > close, their customers will go elsewhere. Florian's ice > cream parlor was gone, but did anyone go without ice cream? > Not that we heard. Actually, we heard a bit indirectly. Compare the trip to Diagon Alley in DH to the trips to Diagon Alley in other years. Harry had many an ice cream at Florian's ice cream parlor before - and they wouldn't have stopped for ice cream that last time anyway. People don't spent time in shopping areas when they are nervous about them. And if they don't spend time there, they don't buy the peripheral things like ice cream and sneakoscopes. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 03:32:34 2008 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:32:34 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180175 Betsy Hp: "For myself, JKR's writing turned me off her writing. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180176 "Carol" wrote: > Surely, it wasn't just the inability to > speculate that had taken away our enjoyment Speculation was the real fun, now all people do is find a trivial (or nonexistent) inconsistency and claim it has ruined the entire series for them. Or they say there are loose ends because JKR didn't tell us what every minor character did for the next 50 years. > Ron knowing about the Hand of Glory that > Draco supposedly owned There was no scene in the series where Harry bought a pair of shoes, and yet Harry wore shoes, and this inconsistency has ruined the entire series for me. > I don't think that the HBP books are great > books. Certainly, JKR is not a great author. Then one cannot help but wonder why you spent so much time with them, and wrote about them so much. My theory is that the reason so many are angry with JKR now is that she stopped writing. Well, I always said her biggest flaw as a writer is that every one of her books is too short, and 7 books is indeed too few. > I think, frankly, that the Peter Principle > has overcome her, [ ] I wish I could respect > her, but I can't It's odd, if you had said that about another member of this group the moderators would be all upset; I know that from personal experience because I have been slapped down for saying far less insulting things about other posters. And yet you can say that about the very person who created the universe that has given all of us such pleasure for so many years and apparently that's just fine. If they won't say it I will, I think that is small of you. I hope you have the good taste to be a little ashamed of yourself. Eggplant From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 1 07:54:08 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 07:54:08 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180177 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: Eggplant: > There was no scene in the series where Harry bought a pair > of shoes, and yet Harry wore shoes, and this inconsistency has > ruined the entire series for me. Geoff: You have to have left a smiley off that comment. It's lso true of underpants and toothpaste. no one never goes to the toilet; Ron never washes his hair; Petunia never rushes to the corner shop for a packet of frozen peas..... etc. etc. ....or at least it's never an important part of the story line. :-) (I'll include one!) Carol: > > I think, frankly, that the Peter Principle > > has overcome her, [ ] I wish I could respect > > her, but I can't Eggplant: > It's odd, if you had said that about another member of this group the > moderators would be all upset; I know that from personal experience > because I have been slapped down for saying far less insulting things > about other posters. And yet you can say that about the very person > who created the universe that has given all of us such pleasure for so > many years and apparently that's just fine. If they won't say it I > will, I think that is small of you. Geoff: I suspect they would comment if your reply was considered to be a bit near the mark. But personally I don't think that the comment which you highlight has actually overstepped the bounds of /diplomatic/ criticism. Anyway, a Happy New Harry-Potter-discussing Year everyone. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 1 08:21:25 2008 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 08:21:25 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180178 "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > I suspect they would comment if your reply > was considered to be a bit near the mark. So you think the moderators will not tolerate insults if they think they are true, but insults are fine as long as they are false. You know, judged by the absolutely ridiculous abuse JKR has been getting lately I think you just may be correct. Eggplant From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 08:37:40 2008 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 08:37:40 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180179 "eggplant wrote: > > So you think the moderators will not tolerate insults if they think > they are true, but insults are fine as long as they are false. You > know, judged by the absolutely ridiculous abuse JKR has been getting > lately I think you just may be correct. > > Eggplant Doddie here: You are correct..(hanging head in shame)...take it from me one who has loathed Snape for ever so long...(Trust me, it must have been really bad to have had a post removed and admonisions given via e'mail...)..LOL I didn't ever take it personally, but after dh, or even HBP...WOW what posters could get away with... Right here and now...it's holiday season...folks will take off time from work and yep...even family(especially families' w/teens...)... I simply get the feeling that postings may not be up until Harry gets to Godrics hollow... Doodie, (who is in all likelhood completely wrong....but had to comment anyhow) From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 09:30:27 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 09:30:27 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180180 > Alla: > > And of course Phinelius' words as some people remarked make little > > or no sense if they did not. To me anyways. > > Magpie: > They made perfect sense to me the first time--as they must since > Slytherin students are not written as returning to fight in the book. > Slytherin played an important part in the destruction of Voldemort > without any return of the Slytherin students. Snape alone made a huge > contribution. > > Alla again: > > And they never made much sense to me. I remember your explanation > but it did seem convoluted to me. How would he know about Regulus > and Snape? Now Montavilla47: As far as Regulus goes, I suppose it depends on what Phineas overheard when he was listening to the Trio in his portrait. But, as far as Snape goes, Phineas was right there on the wall during Snape and Dumbledore's planning sessions. He even helped out at one point by letting Snape know that they were in the Forest of Wherever-It-Was-They-Were. Now, what didn't make sense to me was the Headmaster Portraits neglecting to point out whenever the heck the decision was made by whatever magical entity decides about Headmaster Portraits that Snape didn't deserve a portrait because he "deserted" the school. Because they were *all* there for the planning sessions, so they all had to know that Snape was fighting Voldemort all along. > Alla: > Yes, the words are on page. The words about crowd of people leading > by Slytherin head of the house. And as Carol said, there is not even > an observation that not a single Slytherin was among them. I think > it is filling in to assume that Slytherin head of the house brought > some of his students back, I really do. Montavilla47: A crowd of people that are specified as being the families of students who were fighting in the castle and shopkeepers from Hogsmeade. Had JKR wanted to clue us in that the crowd included the Slytherin students who had left, she could have said, "leading a crowd that looked like the families of the fighting students, shopkeepers, and a few of Slytherins who had left earlier." Had it been me, I might have added for good measure, "Harry thought he recognized a tall, weedy Slytherin as someone he'd taken class with for six years, but it was hard to tell without the school uniform." Alla: > But would you mind explaining to me how is it different from making > an assumption that Dumbledore killed people, please? I mean the > words are on page which does not include Dumbledore killing anybody. > I would say those are much more explicit than vague description of > the crowd leading by Slytherin head of the house. Montavilla47: Just to agree with you, Alla, I do think that it's an assumption that Dumbledore ever killed anyone directly. I'd say that he made plans that got other people killed when they didn't work out the way he wanted them to. But, that's definitely an inference I'm drawing from various clues. It's never stated directly. Which sort of leaves us with the question of whether he felt any responsibility for doing that. For example, he says, "Poor Severus," when Harry brings up Snape's role in the plan--but is that regret for putting Snape in Voldemort's line of fire or just pity that Snape happened to get killed? Does Dumbledore feel any responsibility about Vance's death? (I find it very hard to believe that Snape gave any more information to Voldemort than he was authorized to give, including the information that "lead to her capture and death.") Does he feel responsible for allowing Snape to take that prophecy to Voldemort? The only deaths he shows regret for is Ariana's and his own (or rather, for his tragic flaw that led to his untimely death). But, he also pleads for lives when he drinks the potion in the cave. So, he regrets *something*. I just don't know what it is. Still. Montavilla47 From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 1 12:58:37 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:58:37 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180181 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > > I suspect they would comment if your reply > > was considered to be a bit near the mark. > > So you think the moderators will not tolerate insults if they think > they are true, but insults are fine as long as they are false. You > know, judged by the absolutely ridiculous abuse JKR has been getting > lately I think you just may be correct. > > Eggplant Geoff: I apologise; I obviously didn't make myself clear.... When I said "near the mark", I meant in terms of rudeness or being inflammatory. I did not intend the meaning you have placed upon it. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 1 13:09:06 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:09:06 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180182 "Jim Ferer" wrote: snip There are so many stories left > to tell, though - we could spend a lot of time discussing those and > how the wizard world works, but there seems little interest in it. Potioncat: Exactly.NOne of those sorts of threads seem to catch on. And to be honest, as much as I wanted to know from JKR before the books were done---I wish she'd stop now. Or I wish she'd tell us more about what was going through her mind as she wrote and what influenced her in creating the characters and plots. > Jim > I don't post much any more because my posts rarely get replies. I'm > sure some others feel the same. It's nobody's fault. Potioncat: What a relief, I though it was just me. Then I began to notice that when I was very busy, the list was hopping and as soon I had lots of time, the list slowed to a stop. I was getting a bit paranoid! Jim: There was a sense of > discovery that may be impossible to recapture. Potioncat: That's it! It was a sort of puzzle, a challenge. It was a case of working out the hints and discussing them here. Having to support your point against fellow list members---who could fire canon as fast as anything---not in a an antagonistic way, but in the spirit of the challenge. That was so much fun! Now it too often seems to be a case of "I'm right and you're wrong." There's more criticism of JKR's work now, it would be good if we could approach that in the same way we used to approach the story. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 13:44:03 2008 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:44:03 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180183 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > "Jim Ferer" wrote: > > snip > There are so many stories left > > to tell, though - we could spend a lot of time discussing those and how the wizard world works, but there seems little interest in it. > > Potioncat: > Exactly.NOne of those sorts of threads seem to catch on. <<>> ***Katie: I think none of these threads catch on because we just aren't ready yet. I'm interested in the rest of the world that JKR created, and I think there's enormous potential there for fanfic, discussion, and investigation...but I'm not done talking about Harry yet! : ) I spent 10 years with this guy and his buddies, reading and wondering and hoping and waiting for the next book, and that's a lot of invested time and effort and love. It's only been 6 1/2 months since DH came out - hardly enough time to digest the series, discuss it, and move on. At least for me. Catch me in a year, and see what I think then, but for now, more Harry, please. > > Jim > > I don't post much any more because my posts rarely get replies. I'm sure some others feel the same. It's nobody's fault. > > Potioncat: > What a relief, I though it was just me. Then I began to notice that when I was very busy, the list was hopping and as soon I had lots of time, the list slowed to a stop. I was getting a bit paranoid! ***Katie: Me, too! I was starting to think people didn't like me! A thread would be going strong until I contributed a post, and then it would suddenly die. What is that about?? > > Jim: > There was a sense of > > discovery that may be impossible to recapture. <<>> ***Katie: It's *definitely* impossible to recapture. Because we know what happens. There's nothing left to discover. At least in Harry's story. We can nitpick over details, and wonder about little things, but in terms of the actual story, it's all there. No more wondering if Snape is DD's man, or how on earth Harry was going to find all those Horcruxes, or whether Harry himself was one...it's all been given to us. And, of course, that's what we've been waiting for all these years. But I have to say, that me immediate reaction to DH was disappointment. NOT because the book was bad (that came later ; ) ), but because it was all over. I felt a profound sense of loss that the journey had come to an end. It was the same feeling I had when I graduated college after 8 years of part time schooling and working and raising a family...it was so hard, but it was my story and I hated seeing it end. However, I have to add that I *am* disappointed in the last book. I think it was far from the best one. It felt rushed and cobbled together and was no where near as clean and polished as the rest of the series. And that had dampened my enthusiasm for writing about it. I saw myself doing little but complaining, and I didn't like that. So, I stopped posting as frequently. I still love the books...but the flaws in DH make it hard for me to have the passion for it that I used to. That being said, it's still up in my top five all time list, and I am waiting with baited breath for the opening of that theme park at Universal Studios, and for the last two films...and I know I will always love these books, but I need time to digest them, and sometimes that means I don't post like I used to. I would hazard that there are similar feelings across the HP world, and amongst others on this board. In the spirit of new threads, however, a question I have always had: How do you guys think the very first wizards realized they were different and how do you think the wizarding community was formed? I mean, are we talking prehistoric, here? Or do we think this is a more recent evolutionary change? HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Katie From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 15:06:34 2008 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:06:34 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180184 Carol: "Where was the fun we had had before? Surely, it wasn't just the inability to speculate that had taken away our enjoyment." To a large degree it was, though. The world was not complete and we were creating it in our image, and owning a piece of it in our imaginations. Carol: "I don't think that the HBP books are great books. Certainly, JKR is not a great author. I think, frankly, that the Peter Principle has overcome her, and she's been raised to a prominence she's not capable of sustaining." If JKR has a problem sustaining her prominence, I would say it's because she went so high. The HP books will be read and discussed for the rest of our lifetimes, and probably beyond. The world she created is richer and more complex than almost any other in literature. Millions of words could be written telling the stories arising from that world, and they will be. We readers could recapture the wonder of speculation we thrived on on these storylines. Carol: "I've spent far too much time thinking about her characters and her world. But that's because they're no longer her characters. They're outside her control and have taken on a "reality" or existence of their own, which she needs to recognize and honor." There will always be a struggle between JKR and us, the fans, over ownership of this world. [see Arthur Conan Doyle] We know how things turned out in JKR's world, but there's nothing stopping us from taking off from there on our own. "It could have gone thiss way..." JKR seems a gentle enough spirit to handle it (her generous attitude towards fanfic is proof enough), and I completely forgive her if she has enough ego to think she did something special that's hers. Her attitude will mellow. I like the idea of approaching these books as history. History is even more imprecise and imperfect. Like life, the world is messy. All worlds are messy. Carol, I regret that your joy in the books has diminished. You've always been a thinker and valuable contributor, and I'd hate it to think you feel let down. I didn't want it to end, and I wish it would go on forever, but I know it can't. I know they aren't perfect. They can't be. The story was emotionally satisfying, though, and that counts for me. Jim Ferer From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 15:29:29 2008 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:29:29 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180185 Katie: "I think none of these threads catch on because we just aren't ready yet. I'm interested in the rest of the world that JKR created, and I think there's enormous potential there for fanfic, discussion, and investigation...but I'm not done talking about Harry yet!" Excellent point. Fanfic and feigned history are excellent vehicles for doing this. Logical holes or plain cockamamie notions stick out like a sore thumb. And, like everyone else, I'm most curious about our fictional friends' futures. Jim Ferer (me) "There are so many stories left to tell, though - we could spend a lot of time discussing those and how the wizard world works, but there seems little interest in it." Potioncat: "Exactly. None of those sorts of threads seem to catch on." Too bad, too. I had the thrill of a lifetime when JKR explained how something worked that was essentially the same as how I speculated. I wondered, "What would I do if one of my daughters got a Hogwarts letter?" (Never mind I'm in the U.S.) I'm no Vernon Dursley, far from it, but I wouldn't just let her nip off to a magic school based on a letter in green ink, would I? Besides, I'd be on a terrible emotional roller coaster. So I wrote a fanfic saying that Muggle parents of Hogwarts students visit the new family and help them get over the shock. (I also speculated some things that were 100% wrong.) JKR had young Snape explain to Lily that people from the Ministry to that. My way is better. This is what I mean when I say I like to walk around in the Wizarding world to see how it works. We could keep busy with that forever. Jim Ferer (me again): "There was a sense of discovery that may be impossible to recapture." Katie: "It's *definitely* impossible to recapture. Because we know what happens. There's nothing left to discover. At least in Harry's story. We can nitpick over details, and wonder about little things, but in terms of the actual story, it's all there. No more wondering if Snape is DD's man, or how on earth Harry was going to find all those Horcruxes, or whether Harry himself was one...it's all been given to us." Not impossible once we look past what's happened already and take a look at all the stories we haven't heard yet, even including about Harry and his future; but I take your point, obviously. Jim Ferer From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Jan 1 16:18:49 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 09:18:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? References: <30985.82503.qm@web52803.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006301c84c91$ff8e8bc0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180186 > CJ - > snip > "Who knows? For myself, I think some of the flaws of the final book have > dampened my enthusiasm for the series (much the same way as I stopped > watching the first Matrix movie because the second and third were such > disasters)." > > > Bob > The flaws of the final book? Is everyone here so perfect that we can > throw stones like that? May I see your seven volume masterpiece? ...... Shelley now: Well, Bob, I happened to agree with CJ. This person was posting the answer to a question: "Why so few posts?" And the answer was "because this book dampened my enthusiasm for the series. " To which I fully agree, because I feel the same way. It's not a question of what this list is for, it's a question of temperature of the room. With other books, there was red hot enthusiasm for the books when they were released. In part, that was due to there being other books in the future, so we had implications to discuss are predictions to make, but I don't think that is all of the reason for the lull in activity now. I think, in part, that for some people (such as myself) this book was the worst in the series, and that has killed our willingness to invest the time and the energy it takes to discuss it. And, if that didn't, then rants like yours only add to the idea that only "positive" things can be discussed about the series, and would further help to kill off any discussions we would have about how the book disappointed us. I disagree with you that a "discussion" list can't be a criticism list at the same time, for no one author in fully perfect, and every author will have things that the most adoring fans might criticize (book too short, book too long, book flew by too fast and was over in a flash, and so forth.) From e2fanbev at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 15:00:33 2008 From: e2fanbev at yahoo.com (e2fanbev) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:00:33 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180187 > Magpie: > I don't think it's even that complicated--Slughorn=Slughorn, just as > any character=themselves. Slughorn might be fat, but he doesn't > encompass all the students in his house. The line is describing a > perfectly straightforward thing: Slughorn is running at the head, and > behind him are shopkeepers and parents of non-Slytherin students who > stayed. Bev: You are ignoring the FRIENDS. The book says Slughorn is leading the families, FRIENDS and the shopkeepers and homeowners of the village. Who else would the friends be if not of-age Slytherin students following their head of house? Any underage children of the Hogsmeade shopkeepers and homeowners would be students at Hogwarts, over age children would be off earning a living or continuing their studies, training for careers, and part of the adult village population. Draco and his clique were extreme in their views and did not bother to make friends outside their house, but we saw by the intermingling of students of each house as boy/girlfriends that not all students felt that way. Interhouse friendships or acquaintances formed. IMO I don't see any reason why it cannot be assumed Slughorn brought some of his of-age students back with him to fight with their friends who stayed behind-- alongside any of-age Hufflepuffs or Ravenclaws who had a change of mind. Harry doesn't mention them by name in the crowd either but it doesn't mean they weren't there. He saw friends of the students who stayed behind and they could be from all houses including Slytherin. IMO, Bev From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 17:08:29 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:08:29 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180188 Carol earlier: > > Ron knowing about the Hand of Glory that > > Draco supposedly owned > Eggplant: > There was no scene in the series where Harry bought a pair of shoes, > and yet Harry wore shoes, and this inconsistency has ruined the entire series for me. Carol: Of course, buying shoes and other mundane matters (like Harry's having glasses) are not dealt with in the books. But the Hand of Glory is an important object, introduced into the story early (CoS) because it would play a role later (just as Sirius's flying motorcycle is introduced in SS/PS). Unfortunately, JKR has Harry see Lucius *refusing* to buy it for Draco, then later takes for granted that *Ron* would know that Draco owns the Hand his father refused to buy for him. She could at least have had Harry mention the Hand of Glory to Ron, but she never does even that much. It's just one example of JKR's forgetting what she actually wrote and not bothering to consult the earlier book. Another example is the mention of skulls in the Slytherin common room in DH, when in fact, no such skulls are described in CoS. Possibly she was thinking of Borgin and Burkes. (And her statement in an interview that the Slytherin common room has an eerie beauty is not consistent with skulls, either.) > Carol earlier: > > I don't think that the HBP books are great books. Certainly, JKR is not a great author. > > Then one cannot help but wonder why you spent so much time with them, and wrote about them so much. Carol: Because, as I said (and you snipped), they are *good* books which have given me a great deal of enjoyment--at least until JKR's pronouncements and changes to the tone of this list took much of that enjoyment away. Eggplant: My theory is that the reason so many are angry with JKR now is that she stopped writing. Well, I always said her biggest flaw as a writer is that every one of her books is too short, and 7 books is indeed too few. Carol: I think those of us who are angry with JKR, or perhaps annoyed with her is more accurate, feel that way for a variety of reasons. I can think of at least four posters, probably more, who were severely disappointed in the books, apparently because JKR's interviews led them to expect DH to be something other than it was. (I, for one, never expected the House-Elves to be freed, but I do wish it had been clearer that at least one Slytherin student fought for Hogwarts. I hated McGonagall's chasing them all out. I also hated Harry's casting the Crucio, but neither incident ruined the book for me. Dumbledore came near to doing so, but I've reconciled myself to him and to Snape's death.) It's clear from their posts that the books being too short is the least of their concerns. They're looking at themes, at what JKR says she's writing about, and failing to see those themes carried through in the books. I don't agree with those posters; I think the focus is on Harry and on his growth as a character, especially his learning to see others more clearly (as symbolized by the absence of his glasses in "King's Cross," but I understand why they feel as they do. No doubt they would have had different expectations if they hadn't had time between books to hope and speculate, and if JKR had not yielded to the pressure to participate in impromptu interviews and chat sessions. If she had to make public proclamations between books, a carefully prepared statement would have been better. As it is, we now see not only inconsistencies among the various books but between interview statements and the books. It would be better if she had never attempted to interpret the books herself but had left that job to her readers. (It's like a student grading his own performance on a test.) > Carol earlier: > > I think, frankly, that the Peter Principle has overcome her, [ ] I wish I could respect her, but I can't > > It's odd, if you had said that about another member of this group the moderators would be all upset; I know that from personal experience because I have been slapped down for saying far less insulting things about other posters. And yet you can say that about the very person who created the universe that has given all of us such pleasure for so many years and apparently that's just fine. If they won't say it I will, I think that is small of you. > > I hope you have the good taste to be a little ashamed of yourself. Carol responds: I would never say that about another poster, nor would I say that they're being "small" and need to be ashamed of themselves. Fortunately, my feelings aren't hurt since I know you're standing up for the author whose books this forum is based on, my own former favorite author. I'm Sorry, Eggplant, but her attitude of knowing everything about the books and not allowing us to interpret them really does make me think less of her and I have lost respect for her as both author and person because of her "it's my ball and I make the rules" attitude. And I have every right to say that on this list. I am not, after all, sending her hate mail or threatening her with physical harm. I am merely reacting to her attitude in her recent interviews and assessing her capacity as a writer, which is not what I thought it was, at least as evidenced by DH, whcih seems to be constrained by a plot outline made many years ago and not altered to fit the growth of the other books and characters. (The inconsistencies, such as the date of Sirius's letter to Lily in relation to the date of her death, not to mention the mere presence of that letter at 12 GP, seem inexcusable in the final book of a series. Not only does she have all those notes, she has the printed text of the works to consult. And, though this has little to do with DH, she's only just now coming to realize that she may have misplaced twenty-four hours back in SS/PS.) Which does not mean that I didn't enjoy the books, including the much-criticized DH. I've spent many pleasurable hours with them, and I fell, like many other readers, under Snape's spell. I don't, however, regard them as great literature, only as good fun while it lasted. I'll grant her Snape as a "gift of a character": I think he and Dumbledore have made their mark on literature and popular culture, not because of her remarks about them but because of their words and actions in the books themselves. I just wish she would realize that her characters and the WW are no longer within her control. She's like a person who gives a Christmas present and then claims it as her own because she bought or made it. Wrong. The books belong to the readers, to interpret as they will (preferably in accordance with what's on the page). When she realizes that and publicly acknowledges it (and concedes that the books contain inconsistencies that can't be explained away), I'll respect her again. But, meanwhile, I think she exceeded her capacity--and that of most people--by writing a seven-book series in the first place, failing to realize that her characters--and Slytherin House--had outgrown the roles she originally planned for them. And she needs to realize that an author's intentions do not automatically translate to the page and that it's neither possible nor desirable to answer every question, much less to dictate the reader's interpretation of characters, groups, events,symbols, and motifs. Carol, who is sorry to have offended a fellow poster but stands firm in her view that JKR underestimates her fans' capacity to interpret her words and imagine the scenes and characters for ourselves without accepting her view of them or her "intentions" as definitive From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jan 1 17:48:32 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:48:32 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180189 > > Magpie: > > > I don't think it's even that complicated--Slughorn=Slughorn, just > as > > any character=themselves. Slughorn might be fat, but he doesn't > > encompass all the students in his house. The line is describing a > > perfectly straightforward thing: Slughorn is running at the head, > and > > behind him are shopkeepers and parents of non-Slytherin students > who > > stayed. > > Bev: > > You are ignoring the FRIENDS. > The book says Slughorn is leading the families, FRIENDS and the > shopkeepers and homeowners of the village. Who else would the friends > be if not of-age Slytherin students following their head of house? Magpie: Slytherins have been very consistently shown to not be friends with anybody in other houses. So no, of course I wouldn't hear "friends of students who stayed" and think of the Slytherin. That would be silly words to use when you actually meant "Slytherins" who are characters in themselves that we know--and not as friends but anyone but each other. For God sakes, in JKR's interview where we actually learned of this idea what did she say? She said the Slytherins. She's not incapable of saying what she means. Trying to work "the Slytherins who left earlier" into this sentence is torturous. And requires a lot of invention that would totally take somebody out of the story at that moment--like the explanation you've given here. I'm going with the more obvious words on the page here, which JKR totally changed in her interview. The moment she described there did not happen on the page. Alla: > But would you mind explaining to me how is it different from making > an assumption that Dumbledore killed people, please? I mean the > words are on page which does not include Dumbledore killing anybody. > I would say those are much more explicit than vague description of > the crowd leading by Slytherin head of the house. Magpie: Dumbledore killing anybody directly isn't canon either. I don't see how that's particularly more clear than a sentence that this. In one case we've got Dumbledore telling us what happened, so speculation assumes he's lying or leaving stuff out. In this sentence we're talking about a narrator the author's using to describe the scene with the author having even less reason to lie than Dumbledore andless room for speculation. JKR might have faults as a writer, but she's got the basic competence. If she got information across in this convoluted a way in any other part of the book the story would be incoherent. When Ron enters a room she says Ron entered the room, she doesn't say: the door opened and there stood Angelina's boyfriend-- meaning Ron. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 18:06:09 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:06:09 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180190 Magpie: In one > case we've got Dumbledore telling us what happened, so speculation > assumes he's lying or leaving stuff out. In this sentence we're > talking about a narrator the author's using to describe the scene > with the author having even less reason to lie than Dumbledore > andless room for speculation. Alla: Huh? I see no difference whatsoever. For some reason speculating based on Dumbledore answering Yes to Harry "you never killed if you could help it" is a valid speculation. Never mind that as you said there are no references to Dumbledore killing **anybody** directly in canon. For some reason in this instance it is okay to assume that Dumbledore lying or leaving stuff out. Which is as I said fine by me. Not that I am assigning to myself a role of ultimate judge of what is valid speculation or what not, I just as reader accept it as speculation. BUT when the crowd lead by Slytherin head of the house described VAGUELY, it is not Okay to assume that narrator left staff out????? Why is that? Harry never had been known for remembering many names, he sees Slughorn already, so many other things are on his mind - finding diadema, etc. You think he will be oh so very concerned with whether Blaise and Theo and others returned to fight? He already experienced change of heart about Regulus, he sees Slughorn, who was running before coming back, you think he should definitely mention names of the students? That this be oh so very important for him? Not in my opinion. Magpie: JKR might have faults as a writer, but > she's got the basic competence. If she got information across in this > convoluted a way in any other part of the book the story would be > incoherent. When Ron enters a room she says Ron entered the room, she > doesn't say: the door opened and there stood Angelina's boyfriend-- > meaning Ron. Alla: The way you described - sure. But if for example Harry would have lied wounded in the hospital and author would describe the redheaded crowd led by Molly to see him, you bet I would assume Ron was among them. JMO, Alla From windmills_woodenshoes at hotmail.com Tue Jan 1 19:00:42 2008 From: windmills_woodenshoes at hotmail.com (danielle) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:00:42 -0000 Subject: Why Harry did not kill Bella WAS: Re: horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180191 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > CJ: > > Harry performed two of the three Unforgivables -- crucio'ing Carrow > in the > > Gryffindor Commons, and tossing Imperios around Gringott's like > Christmas > > candy -- and attempted the third against Snape at the end of book > six. Harry > > was far from pure. > > Alla: > > Sure, but he did not kill anyone and consciously tried not to - in my > book that counts for something. > > CJ: > Not even particularly admirable. > > Alla: > > That's your opinion. I do not need him to be pure to be admirable. In > my > opinion he tried to do right thing enough times to admire him for > that. He failed a lot too of course. > > JMO. > > Alla. > Danielle here: I am thinking more along the lines that Molly knew what Bella did to Nevilles parents, and if Bella did kill Fred and wasn't she also trying to kill Ginny and Hermione when Molly stepped up. I think Molly feels she is the great protector of children in a way. She totally takes Harry under her wing, and probably would have taken Neville in as well if Ron had brought Neville home. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 19:47:10 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:47:10 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180192 Magpie wrote: > In this sentence we're talking about a narrator the author's using to describe the scene with the author having even less reason to lie than Dumbledore andless room for speculation. JKR might have faults as a writer, but she's got the basic competence. If she got information across in this convoluted a way in any other part of the book the story would be incoherent. When Ron enters a room she says Ron entered the room, she doesn't say: the door opened and there stood Angelina's boyfriend--meaning Ron. > Carol responds: She doesn't say "Ron *seemed* to enter the room" or "Ron entered *what looked like* a room." When she wants the narrator's words to be straightforward and not subject to any interpretation other than the obviously intended meaning, as in "Ron entered a room," they are. However, she has often given us an unreliable narrator when Harry is *interpreting* the scene ("He was going to die from the pain" or "Snape was going to Crucio him into insanity"), and here she's providing clues ("seemed," "what looked like") to a hurried *interpretation* of a scene that Harry barely glimpses. How much clearer can she get that "what looked like" or "seemed" is not necessarily what *is*? Not to mention that Harry *does not know* the people of Hogsmeade, with a few exceptions (was Rosmerta there?), nor does he know the parents of the students. We know that the students are all in their pajamas, a few with traveling cloaks thrown over them. others in dressing gowns. A quick glance won't distinguish the of-age students of any House from their parents. And will someone please tell me how the students who remained at Hogwarts to fight contacted their parents? The only parents who could have been contacted are those of the students who went with Slughorn to the Hog's Head. Not to mention that Slughorn is not likely to contact the parents of any students not in his own House. Carol, who feels free to believe that Rosmerta (and Theo and Blaise) followed Slughorn because JKR didn't specify otherwise From dancinbamba at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 19:38:14 2008 From: dancinbamba at yahoo.com (bambalita) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:38:14 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180193 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > > Since this started, there have almost never been less than 1000 posts > in a month. So what happened since late Oct or early Nov to stop so > many posts? > Well for me personally there is nothing more to guess/ponder/wait for....It's over....The series has ended so there is no more anticipation regarding Harry and friends....... kinda sad huh? bambalita From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jan 1 20:25:49 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:25:49 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180194 > Magpie: > > > In one > > case we've got Dumbledore telling us what happened, so speculation > > assumes he's lying or leaving stuff out. In this sentence we're > > talking about a narrator the author's using to describe the scene > > with the author having even less reason to lie than Dumbledore > > andless room for speculation. > > Alla: > > Huh? I see no difference whatsoever. For some reason speculating > based on Dumbledore answering Yes to Harry "you never killed if you > could help it" is a valid speculation. Never mind that as you said > there are no references to Dumbledore killing **anybody** directly > in canon. For some reason in this instance it is okay to assume that > Dumbledore lying or leaving stuff out. Magpie: I said in both cases you're making something up. There is no specific murder that Dumbledore commits by his own hand that is canon, period. I'm just saying that with this sentence it's even more glaringly -- the sentence says something straightforward. If this were a basic reading comprehension question the answer would be obvious: Who do we see entering the school here? The answer would be exactly what's stated in the sentence. Not anybody you can imagine would also be there with an argument about how Harry for some reason couldn't recognize the people correctly or they've been described in misleading ways. In the Harry/Dumbledore scene at least you've got Harry actually saying "You never killed somebody if you could help it" which would reasonably make you ask if he's implying he thinks Dumbledore killed people when he couldn't help it. Neither Dumbledore's killing people or Slytherins returning are canon--but compared to that sentence about Slughorn's return the line about Dumbledore killing people is a festival of ambiguity. Not because Dumbledore killing somebody by his own hand is clear canon, but because the sentence about Slughorn's return to the school doesn't even hint at Slytherins other than Slughorn doing anything. Alla: > BUT when the crowd lead by Slytherin head of the house described > VAGUELY, it is not Okay to assume that narrator left staff out????? Magpie: It's not described vaguely at all! If it's left out it's not there. All the woman had to do to make this happen is actually say it happens, if it's not there it's not there-it IS THERE in her interview question. It is not there in canon anywhere. At best, this is like Hermione's sister--never got into canon, so is not canon because she left stuff out. There's a point where "leaving stuff out" means "did not happen" and "not part of the story" and this is pretty much it. How am I suppose to have any actual book at all if "left stuff out" means anything can just change? This is going beyond expecting me to interpret characters or situations the way they work for me--this is telling me that my basic language skills don't count. Alla: > Why is that? Harry never had been known for remembering many names, > he sees Slughorn already, so many other things are on his mind - > finding diadema, etc. You think he will be oh so very concerned with > whether Blaise and Theo and others returned to fight? Magpie: Yeah, I bloody well do. He's telling me shopkeepers and families of students already there just came in, not to mention Slughorn and Charlie. It has nothing to do with what Harry cares about, this is the narrator telling us what's there. It has nothing to do with Harry's alleged inability to remember names or how much Harry cares about Slytherin (and he would certainly notice the return of Blaise Zabini fighting at his side as much or more so than the people he mentions here). It's not even Harry talking, it's the narrator, the same voice whose job it is to describe for *us* what's happening in the battle, and manages to do so. There's no reason whatsoever JKR couldn't just say the Slytherins are returning in this scene. She didn't. For some reason now she's changed it in her mind to be her "high point" of the battle that's all about the *Slytherins* crashing in. I have no idea why she changed it, but I've got the original text and that's not what happened. > All: > He already experienced change of heart about Regulus, he sees > Slughorn, who was running before coming back, you think he should > definitely mention names of the students? That this be oh so very > important for him? Not in my opinion. Magpie: He doesn't have to mention any names, but anyway that doesn't matter. I don't have to defend my interpretation against extreme positions for Harry in this scene for my interpretation. My interpretation is what's actually on the page. The sentence says Slughorn has appeared with shopkeepers and people connected to non-Slytherin students who stayed. That's what it says, that's what happened. Harry's mindset only comes into it when you start with the proposition that there are actually Slytherins there that are not in the text and then have to find a reason why they're not actually in the text, which there's no reason to do. > Magpie: > JKR might have faults as a writer, but > > she's got the basic competence. If she got information across in > this > > convoluted a way in any other part of the book the story would be > > incoherent. When Ron enters a room she says Ron entered the room, > she > > doesn't say: the door opened and there stood Angelina's boyfriend- - > > meaning Ron. > > Alla: > > The way you described - sure. But if for example Harry would have > lied wounded in the hospital and author would describe the redheaded > crowd led by Molly to see him, you bet I would assume Ron was among > them. Magpie: That's not what I said. There is no "red-headed crowd" here that we'd of course recognize as the Weasleys. This is Ron Weasley entering a room where Harry is fully awake and the author, rather than saying that Ron has entered the room, saying that Angelina's boyfriend has entered the room and that's supposed to be Ron. Or that Harry, fully awake and in possession of his senses, enters the room followed by Fudge and some Ministry employees--and that means the Weasleys. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 20:48:40 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:48:40 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180195 Alla: > BUT when the crowd lead by Slytherin head of the house described > VAGUELY, it is not Okay to assume that narrator left staff out????? Magpie: It's not described vaguely at all! If it's left out it's not there. Alla: Really? Okay, then could you please name every person who belongs to that crowd. That to me would mean that it is not described vaguely. I think it described quite vaguely considering the fact that Harry would not even know the parents at all. Magpie: All the woman had to do to make this happen is actually say it happens, if it's not there it's not there-it IS THERE in her interview question. It is not there in canon anywhere. This is going beyond expecting me to interpret characters or situations the way they work for me--this is telling me that my basic language skills don't count. Alla: No, it is me saying that I consider the description of that crowd to be vague enough to imagine that some Slytherins returned. Of course she does not tell us explicitly the names of Slytherins who returned, but to me what she described is enough to fill in that. If I feel like it of course. Alla: > Why is that? Harry never had been known for remembering many names, > he sees Slughorn already, so many other things are on his mind - > finding diadema, etc. You think he will be oh so very concerned with > whether Blaise and Theo and others returned to fight? Magpie: Yeah, I bloody well do. He's telling me shopkeepers and families of students already there just came in, not to mention Slughorn and Charlie. It has nothing to do with what Harry cares about, this is the narrator telling us what's there. Alla: And do I have to start naming the occurrences when narrator tells us what it is is NOT what it is at all? How about "Severus, please", which turned out to be quite different from what narrator thought it is ( and me LOL)? There are plenty of occurrences where narrator is describing something and it turns out to be something completely different. Magpie: He doesn't have to mention any names, but anyway that doesn't matter. I don't have to defend my interpretation against extreme positions for Harry in this scene for my interpretation. My interpretation is what's actually on the page. The sentence says Slughorn has appeared with shopkeepers and people connected to non-Slytherin students who stayed. That's what it says, that's what happened. Harry's mindset only comes into it when you start with the proposition that there are actually Slytherins there that are not in the text and then have to find a reason why they're not actually in the text, which there's no reason to do. Alla: You do not have to defend your interpretation? Sure you don't. But even if in your mind your interpretation is the only possible one, in mine it is not. Your interpretation is that what is on page has no ambiguity whatsoever, is it not? That is what I disagree with. Carol responds: How much clearer can she get that "what looked like" or "seemed" is not necessarily what *is*? Alla: Just wanted to say me too. I often argued myself that narrator is reliable more often than not, but um, certainly not always. From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 21:03:56 2008 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:03:56 -0000 Subject: Why Harry did not kill Bella WAS: Re: horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180196 CJ: "Harry performed two of the three Unforgivables -- crucio'ing Carrow in the Gryffindor Commons, and tossing Imperios around Gringott's like Christmas candy -- and attempted the third against Snape at the end of book six. Harry was far from pure." =============================== He was human and a hero. No hero is a plaster saint. I find it surprising that Harry is somehow to be criticized for doing what it took to destroy an evil Horcrux or defend the lives of himself and his friends. I'm not nearly as good as Harry. I would have cheerfully done away with every Death Eater I came across. Harry went to (what he thought was) his death so save others. He has nothing to prove in the article of selflessness or purity of heart. The so-called Unforgivables had to do with a peacetime statute of the wizarding world. This is utterly different; it's war, where the imperative is to defeat the enemy and preserve yourself and your mates. Using the Imperio meant Harry didn't have to kill, making it a morally superior choice and a lot easier to forgive than an AK. I don't care if the Ministry called it "unforgivable." The worst thing that could happen is for the Death Eaters to prevail and for Voldemort to survive. That doesn't mean that absolutely anything is justified, but worrying about the welfare of Death Eaters can't be a high priority. Black Magic is a matter of symbolism and intent. Any spell cast with an evil intent is black. Any spell cast for the right reasons is not. Jim Ferer From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jan 1 21:14:21 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:14:21 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180197 > Alla: > > BUT when the crowd lead by Slytherin head of the house described > > VAGUELY, it is not Okay to assume that narrator left staff out????? > > Magpie: > It's not described vaguely at all! If it's left out it's not there. > > > Alla: > > Really? Okay, then could you please name every person who belongs to > that crowd. That to me would mean that it is not described vaguely. > I think it described quite vaguely considering the fact that Harry > would not even know the parents at all. Magpie: Nobody has to name every single person. The people who are identified are shopkeepers and friends/family of non-Slytherin students. Whether Harry knows the parents at all doesn't matter, that's who are described. Slytherin students would be just as easy to describe. They would also be the most important to describe, given that they have consistently been characterized as pro-Voldemort leaning and leaving the fight. Any vagueness of the description still doesn't cover the Slytherins being there. > Alla: > > No, it is me saying that I consider the description of that crowd to > be vague enough to imagine that some Slytherins returned. Of course > she does not tell us explicitly the names of Slytherins who > returned, but to me what she described is enough to fill in that. If > I feel like it of course. Magpie: She never had to give us any specific names of Slytherins one way or the other. She didn't mention any names in her interview, but we're discussing it now because there, for the first time, she introduced the idea of this group being included at all. I can imagine tons of things in the story, that doesn't make them canon. > Magpie: > Yeah, I bloody well do. He's telling me shopkeepers and families of > students already there just came in, not to mention Slughorn and > Charlie. It has nothing to do with what Harry cares about, this is > the narrator telling us what's there. > > Alla: > > And do I have to start naming the occurrences when narrator tells > us what it is is NOT what it is at all? > > How about "Severus, please", which turned out to be quite different > from what narrator thought it is ( and me LOL)? Magpie: So now we're reduced to equating an intentionally ambiguous bit of dialogue and a mundane physical description of who's entering the room that's supposed to be helping us keep track of who's actually there? Even if we do that, Severus please turned out to be quite different because we were TOLD what it meant ON THE PAGE. It's not like in an interview JKR said, "One of my favorite bits of DH is where it was revealed that "Severus please" actually referred to Albus asking Snape to organize a student-run space trip to Mars." Alla: > There are plenty of occurrences where narrator is describing > something and it turns out to be something completely different. Magpie: And plenty more times when it doesn't, and this is one of them. The reason the times when there's a turnaround work is that for the most part the narrator is just telling us what's there, and if it looked like something different than it was we see why/how. There was no turnaround to this. Harry never learns he was wrong about who showed up with Slughorn. > Carol responds: > > How much > clearer can she get that "what looked like" or "seemed" is not > necessarily what *is*? > > Alla: > > Just wanted to say me too. I often argued myself that narrator is > reliable more often than not, but um, certainly not always. Magpie: But if it's not "what is" then we're told what is. We're not here. There's as much evidence for Slughorn showing up with the Rockettes as there are for him showing up with Slytherins who left. The best you're doing here is saying "maybe Harry and the narrator were wrong about who was in the crowd," which doesn't get you any closer to saying Slytherins were there than you were before. Not to mention it requires a lot of, imo, senseless dismantling of the narrator's ability to tell us what is going on in a scene where the narrator's mostly just keeping track of what's going on for us. I think "seemed" and "looked like" more obviously refer to the number of people. There is no reason for Slytherin students we, the narrator and Harry would know perfectly well to "look like" a bunch of completely different people. Even your own examples of trying to change it to the Weasleys make the changes necessary to make it make sense to a normal reader in ways this interpretation doesn't. You have Molly walking in with a crowd of red heads that Harry can't see meaning the other Weasleys, not Molly walking in with Ministry employees that Harry can see perfectly well meaning the other Weasleys. -m From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 1 21:58:15 2008 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:58:15 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180198 "Carol" wrote: > But the Hand of Glory is an important > object, introduced into the story early > (CoS) because it would play a role later So let's review. Draco sees the Hand of Glory in a shop. A shop is a place that sells things. Draco expresses great interest in this object. Some time later we learn that Draco owns this object. You think JKR's readers will be completely befuddled, they will be unable to imagine how it could have possibly come into his possession; they just won't see any way it could have happened. You said JKR had no respect for her readers but I think that description best fits somebody else. > I can think of at least four posters, > probably more, who were severely > disappointed in the books Books, the word in the plural? Oh yes those were the people who were disappointed with all the books but who nevertheless read all 7 the very first day they were available. I am reminded of the old joke: The food in that restaurant is terrible, and portions are way too small. > I also hated Harry's casting the Crucio I wanted to see Harry disembowel someone and then laugh with a mad gleam in his eye. Oh well I'll take what I can get, at least Harry enjoyed the Crucio. > her attitude of knowing everything about > the books I won't say she knows everything about her books but I will say she is the world's leading authority on them. > and not allowing us to interpret them What on earth are you babbling about? > really does make me think less of her > and I have lost respect for her as both > author and person because of her "it's > my ball and I make the rules" attitude. Perhaps I haven't been following this as closely as I should because I don't even know what public statement JKR said that has gotten you into such a tizzy, but frankly I don't care. Unless JKR has publicly endorsed ritual cannibalism then nothing she could say would make me disrespect her, and even if she said that I'd still like her books even if I didn't like her. > I have every right to say that on this list. That is true you do, and I have every right to say that by doing so you demonstrate a smallness of spirit. > I don't, however, regard them as great literature Great literature? Oh yes, like the immortal works of Sully Prudhomme. In 1901 they could have given the very first Nobel Prize in literature to Mark Twain but they decided he was too popular and just wrote children's books; they also could have given it to Tolstoy but they thought War and Peace just wasn't good enough, so instead they gave it to Sully Prudhomme. Have you ever hear of Sully Prudhomme? He was pretty obscure even in 1901 but today after 107 years history has made its judgment and he is more than obscure, he is virtually unknown even by college professors. And don't forget of Grazia Deledda, she won the Nobel in 1926 but what exactly for and what she wrote nobody today knows. I feel very confident in saying that in another 107 years JKR will still be better known than Sully Prudhomme, Grazia Deledda or Harold Bloom; in the year 2115 Harry Potter will be even better known than that other piece of writing that literary snobs sneer at, Sherlock Holmes. > I would never say that about another poster Why not? No poster has given you as much joy as JKR has done, if you must insult someone insult posters not JKR. If you had aimed your insults at me I would not have been the least bit upset, but calling JKR those things makes me mad as hell. They are as unjust as they are stupid. Eggplant From conquistas2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 23:04:39 2008 From: conquistas2000 at yahoo.com (conquistas2000) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:04:39 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180199 Personally, I just stuck around and see if Rowling resolved some of the major problems I have with the series. For example, child abuse. Instead of a long winded post, here a review of HP&PS the sums up the issue of abuse in the series. http://journals.eyrie.org/eagle/archives/000281.html I was hoping that Rowling will do the right thing and give the Dursleys some karmic justice. (Or at least Vernon getting some jail time) Instead, we have the wreck that is DH w/ Manipulative!Dumbledore telling the reader (indirectly) that "child abuse" is okay as long as it is done "for the greater good." That is enough so send my blood boiling and vow never to buy another book from Rowling ever again. Harry Potter being a children's book, yet the message the book is that no adult will do anything about the abuse, even if you try to do the right thing and tell somebody about it. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bambalita" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > > > > Since this started, there have almost never been less than 1000 posts > > in a month. So what happened since late Oct or early Nov to stop so > > many posts? > > > Well for me personally there is nothing more to guess/ponder/wait > for....It's over....The series has ended so there is no more > anticipation regarding Harry and friends....... > kinda sad huh? > > bambalita > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 1 23:12:37 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:12:37 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180200 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Carol" wrote: > > > But the Hand of Glory is an important > > object, introduced into the story early > > (CoS) because it would play a role later > Eggplant: > So let's review. Draco sees the Hand of Glory in a shop. A shop is a place that sells things. Draco expresses great interest in this object. Some time later we learn that Draco owns this object. You think JKR's readers will be completely befuddled, they will be unable to imagine how it could have possibly come into his possession; they just won't see any way it could have happened. You said JKR had no respect for her readers but I think that description best fits somebody else. Carol: It's carelessness, just like the missing 24 hours she's still puzzled about, the letter that had no way of appearing at 12 GP, the skulls in the Slytherin common room (huh?), and a host of other details that she could have checked but didn't. Doesn't bother you; does bother me. Maybe the reader won't be befuddled, but the alert reader who pays attention to such things will be annoyed that JKR didn't. Enough said. And if you'd paid attention to the interviews, you'd know where I got the idea that she doesn't respect her readers. "He's my character and he is what he is," she said regarding Dumbledore. Funny thing. What she says he is doesn't appear on the page, and earlier, she said that she had *always imagined him as gay." Now it's no longer her imagination. It's what he is, canon or no canon. And that's only the most obvious example. > > > I can think of at least four posters, probably more, who were severely disappointed in the books > > Books, the word in the plural? Oh yes those were the people who were > disappointed with all the books but who nevertheless read all 7 the > very first day they were available. I am reminded of the old joke: The > food in that restaurant is terrible, and portions are way too small. Carol: Sorry. I should have said "severely disappointed in DH." And I wasn't speaking of myself, but of other posters on this list who are much less happy with DH than I am. I've defended Dumbledore and Snape and argued that JKR's stated intention in the Slughorn/Slytherin scene is not entirely at odds with the text. But possibly you're too angry with me to notice what I've actually written. > Carol: > > I also hated Harry's casting the Crucio > > I wanted to see Harry disembowel someone and then laugh with a mad > gleam in his eye. Oh well I'll take what I can get, at least Harry > enjoyed the Crucio. Carol: Ah, well. Tastes differ. I like the fact that Harry overcame his desire for vengeance. You wanted Dirty Harry. I say hurray for forgiveness, mercy, and redemption. She's a Christian author, after all. On a side note, I'm much less bothered by Harry's Imperius Curses, which were used when he was in dire peril (though I wonder why Confundus wouldn't have worked) than I was by the Crucio, which was "gallantly" employed for the crime of spitting. An eye for an eye would be more merciful. Let the punishment fit the crime. If I want a sadist as the protagonist of the novel, I'll read "The Life and Times of Bellatrix Lestrange." (Or see "Sweeney Todd, but let's not get OT.) > Carol: > > her attitude of knowing everything about the books > > I won't say she knows everything about her books but I will say she is the world's leading authority on them. Carol: Odd, then, that we remember them better than she does and see inconsistencies she doesn't see. She's the world's leading authority on what *didn't* go into the books, discarded subplots and scenes and characters, certainly. As for authorial intention, I don't think any author really knows what he or she intended, and what matters, in any case, is what actually appears on the page. (I always *intend* for my posts to be clear, courteous, and convincing. I don't always succeed. Heck, sometimes I can't follow them myself, even when I catch all the typos. So much for intention.) > Carol: > > and not allowing us to interpret them > > What on earth are you babbling about? Carol: Not babbling about anything, dear. Read her interviews and chat transcripts. She appears to think that her interpretation is not only the right one but the only one, even when what she says conflicts, or appears to conflict, with what's on the page. Do you think, for example, that she sees Harry as you do, or that she shares your view that he should have killed all the Death Eaters? I rather doubt it. And it appears that she doesn't share my view that Harry's use of the Crucio was something a bit worse than a flaw revealing his humanity. And surely, we both have the right to our views rather than thinking, oh. JKR says such and such. I must be wrong. We have the right to examine the text and read it as it makes sense to us. Do we all agree on Ron or Hermione or Snape or Dumbledore or Kreacher or Marietta or any character in canon? No. Why not? Because the words on the page are not so absolutely unambiguous that they can have only one interpretation, because we see things primarily from Harry's perspective and he's often neither observant nor unbiased, and because, forgive the blasphemy, JKR is a flawed human being who forgets the details of her own previous books, from the effects of a particular spell to Ron's and Harry's having no way of knowing that Draco had obtained the Hand of Glory. (I'm not complaining that he acquired it off-page. I'm complaining about theiry *knowing* that he had one when that's impossible. How he got that Dark artifact past the protections on the school, I don't know. I suppose he had a DE bring it from Borgin and Burkes when he fixed the Vanishing Cabinet. But that's not the explanation we're given in the book.) > Carol earlier: > > really does make me think less of her and I have lost respect for her as both author and person because of her "it's my ball and I make the rules" attitude. > Eggplant: > Perhaps I haven't been following this as closely as I should Carol: Perhaps you haven't. :-) Eggplant: because I don't even know what public statement JKR said that has gotten you into such a tizzy, but frankly I don't care. Carol: It seems you do care, because you appear to be in a bit of a tizzy yourself. As I said, if you'd read the interviews, you'd know what I'm referring to. And I wouldn't call my own reaction a tizzy, just annoyance at her possessive attitude. She gave us the books, certainly, and I'm grateful to have had the experience of reading and discussing them. I just don't want to be told *how* to read them by the author or anyone else. Eggplant: Unless JKR has publicly > endorsed ritual cannibalism then nothing she could say would make me disrespect her, and even if she said that I'd still like her books even if I didn't like her. Carol: Let's just say that I also distinguish between the author and the books (for which I still feel a lingering affection) and leave it at that. > Carol: > > I have every right to say that on this list. > Eggplant: > That is true you do, and I have every right to say that by doing so > you demonstrate a smallness of spirit. Carol: Well, you see, I don't think that posters should insult one another, and I hope you'll notice that I'm not insulting you in return. Nor am I insulting JKR, just expressing disapproval of her attitude. She's a public figure, after all, and her conduct is as subject to discussion as Bush's or Elizabeth II's or Russell Crowe's. None of them, to my knowledge, has told anyone how to think. Peter Jackson has not told us how to interpret his films. (I like Tolkien's view that applicability is in the mind of the reader, myself. Bad paraphrase, but if I go to another window to check the quote, I'll lose my post.) > Carol: > > I don't, however, regard them as great literature > > Great literature? I feel very confident in saying that in another 107 years JKR will still be better known than Sully Prudhomme, Grazia Deledda or Harold Bloom; in the year 2115 Harry Potter will be even better known than that other piece of writing that literary snobs sneer at, Sherlock Holmes. Carol: I was familiar with Harold Bloom long before JKR began drafting Harry Potter. As for the others, who knows. Maybe JKR will stand the test of time; maybe she won't. All I know is that JKR made mistakes that a more careful writer wouldn't have made. I granted her a pair of great characters. And certainly, she excels at providing popular entertainment on a massive scale. Whether that makes her great is another question on which you and I have clearly arrived at different answers. > Carol: > > I would never say that about another poster > Eggplant: > Why not? Carol: Because I believe in courtesy. Eggplant: No poster has given you as much joy as JKR has done, Carol: Oh, I don't know. This list has given me plenty of enjoyment, and I could name particular posters who have been especially entertaining and stimulating if I chose. I do concede that without JKR and her books, there'd have been no list. But if the books could only be read her way, there'd be no list, either. Eggplant: if you > must insult someone insult posters not JKR. Carol: Sorry. You're insulting me, but I have no intention of returning blow for blow. I'm not insulting JKR, either. I said that her books were good and that they had provided me a great deal of entertainment (and some frustration), including the privilege of discussing them. But I think that she's exceeded her capacity. We, the readers, were no doubt expecting too much. She wrote the book she planned all along to write without regard for inconsistencies, coincidence, and other flaws. (I certainly never expected her to write the book I wanted her to write, nor would I criticize her for not doing so. But a twelve-year-old can spot some of the flaws. I've heard young readers pointing them out.) Eggplant: If you had aimed your insults at me I would not have been the least bit upset, but calling JKR those things makes me mad as hell. They are as unjust as they are stupid. > Carol: In my view, they are neither unjust nor stupid or I would not have said them. Nor did I insult JKR. I merely said that the books, especially DH, are flawed and that I find her desire to impose her own interpretation of them on other readers annoying. Carol, wishing Eggplant a happy New Year and hoping that he'll refrain from insulting her in future From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 1 23:22:18 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:22:18 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180201 > Carol: Unfortunately, JKR has Harry see Lucius > *refusing* to buy it for Draco, then later takes for granted that > *Ron* would know that Draco owns the Hand his father refused to buy > for him. She could at least have had Harry mention the Hand of Glory > to Ron, but she never does even that much. It's just one example of> JKR's forgetting what she actually wrote and not bothering to consult the earlier book. Another example is the mention of skulls in the Slytherin common room in DH, when in fact, no such skulls are described in CoS. Possibly she was thinking of Borgin and Burkes.(Andher statement in an interview that the Slytherin common room has an > eerie beauty is not consistent with skulls, either Pippin: But it's a major theme of the series that the assumptions we make on the basis of incomplete information (and information is always more incomplete than we think it is) are often wrong. Skulls can have an eerie beauty; consider the works of Georgia O'Keefe. But I thought that Harry was improvising. The interrogator was obviously waiting for something and Harry, perhaps drawing a bit of inspiration from the Voldie bit, guessed what it was. I would expect the Slytherin CR to be looking more like Grimmauld Place or Borgin and Burkes if Crabbe had anything to say about it. Carol: (I, for one, never expected the House-Elves to be freed, but I do wish it had been clearer that at least one Slytherin student fought for Hogwarts. Pippin: The return of the Slytherins is symbolically important to fans of the House, but I've yet to hear why it should, at that moment, have been important to Harry. He's thinking of the battle, not the future of the House system, and the arrival of a number of fully qualified wizards has got to be far more important to him than the return of some underqualified students that he barely knows. The eyes of history often aren't focused where we would like them to be. There is, for example, a dearth of information about Jesus's existence that would satisfy a historian, and yet subsequent events are somewhat difficult to explain otherwise. We have to explain Hary's changed attitude towards Slytherin, the willingness of everyone to sit without regard to House (surely the Slytherin table would have had pariah status if all its former occupants were regarded as traitors) and Phineas Nigellus's reminder that Slytherin played a part. Now all the portraits already knew about Snape, and none of them have had a chance to hear about Regulus, so what can he be talking about? It strikes me that if the House Elves and the Slytherins had clearly embraced liberal values of tolerance and equality, or been shown to actually have them all along, there would be little dispute about JKR's message and whether she'd managed to get it across. Instead the House Elves and Draco really do have different values. Most Elves believe they really are inferior and many purebloods think they really are the top drawer. That, I realize, challenges a cherished bit of liberal dogma. If it's self-evident that all are created equal then the House Elves and the purebloods must be either really stupid or really wicked not to realize it. But the WW split from the Muggle world before this assertion was made, much less accepted on either side of the pond. For most of history hierarchical societies have been the norm not the aberration. We forget, IMO, that we had to be taught to believe in equality just as we had to be taught to reason critically and trust in logic. The WW hasn't learned to do either. As the story closes, the WW clings to its old values, Ron wavers, and it's Harry and Hermione whose liberalism has had to stretch to accommodate them, not without some strain and questionable compromises. But really, if the WW needs greater tolerance, and who would claim that it does not, how likely is it that it would come from closed minds like Kreacher's or that not very great thinker Draco? So it has to come from Harry and his friends. Harry was great at fighting Voldemort, but he's not the sort of person who could change a culture over night. Harry isn't Jesus, but even Jesus didn't do that. JKR has several times admitted to errors and inconsistencies: Flint's age, the wand order glitch, the ancestor/descendant glitch and most recently the missing twenty-four hours. It doesn't bother me that she took a while to own up to it -- after all she still had the option of working it in. She now has the option of thinking out loud about the story without worrying about misleading people about what's going to happen in the books. So why shouldn't she? The WW is a work of the imagination, not just a set of novels, and it exists both inside and outside of what JKR wrote in them. I've just had great fun putting together my Order of the Phoenix Lego castle -- I followed the directions but of course the building blocks can be put together differently. Am I supposed to be upset if the Lego company puts out some additional ideas for the play set? Will they be intruding on my fun? Of course not! I have to say I am bewildered that a few of JKR's erstwhile fans no longer have anything good to say about the work they once praised so expansively. The cynic in me wonders if it's just the reaction of a largely female fan base to the bitter truth that so many juicy characters are now dead or spoken for. Or is it just that the wizarding world was revealed to be (gasp!)a flawed and struggling society instead of the escapist paradise some readers longed to join? I no longer wish that the wizarding world were real -- but that doesn't mean I'm tired of hearing about it. It seems that the declaration that canon was closed may have been greatly exaggerated -- and for me at least that's not a cause for dismay. Pippin From shellyghost at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 22:26:58 2008 From: shellyghost at gmail.com (Michelle Brown) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 17:26:58 -0500 Subject: What Blood Status Have Harry's Parents? (Was: Re: Why Harry did not kill Bella WAS: Re: horcruxes) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73ab4e570801011426o34813e0bu6b26989240fcc767@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180202 I'm just wandering, but are Harry's parents pure blood of half blood? I think he's half blood, but I'm not sure. Michelle From muellem at bc.edu Tue Jan 1 23:48:53 2008 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:48:53 -0000 Subject: What Blood Status Have Harry's Parents? (Was: Re: Why Harry did not kill Bella W In-Reply-To: <73ab4e570801011426o34813e0bu6b26989240fcc767@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180203 >> "Michelle Brown" wrote: > > I'm just wandering, but are Harry's parents pure blood of half blood? > I think he's half blood, but I'm not sure. > colebiancardi: James is a pure-blood wizard. Lily was born of muggle parents, so she was muggle-born. Harry is half-blood From juli17 at aol.com Wed Jan 2 00:13:07 2008 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 19:13:07 EST Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180204 Steve wrote: Now, I propose that any student against Voldemort was against him for very Slytherinish reason. I don't expect altruistic Gryffindorish motivations. I have speculated in the past that the anti-Voldemort Good Slytherin logic would go something like this. Good Slytherin speaks, 'I plan to be rich. What is good for business, is good for Slytherin. But Voldemort absolutely will NOT be good for business, and therefore will not be good for me. If I want to be rich anytime soon, then I have to oppose Voldemort'. Julie: Most probably know by now that I am not a fan of sorting into Houses, where IMO these 11 year old kids are very thoroughly conditioned by the school, its teachers, the rival students of other Houses, and by society at large how to think and act within set House constraints. Yes, students arrive with certain personality traits and leanings, but I have no doubt that seven years of this sort of constant conditioning plays a strong part in shaping their final persons. We are all a product of nature + nurture (environment) and to me the single most damaging aspect of WW society is this sorting of students and the resultant absence of any attemtped balance in influencing and mentoring of young minds by the teachers and Headmaster. The way it is presented in HP it is a horrifying system, and the WW gets exactly the contentious and divided society it deserves. Your response above, Steve, is to me a case in point. Gryffindors act for the good out of altruism, as presumably do Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws, but Slytherins act for purely self-serving reasons. A perfect example of how easily it is for we fans (let alone Wizarding society) to single out Slytherins as having less noble motives than the supposedly morally superior people from all the other Houses. And as if you can clearly divide motivation into shades of black (self-serving) and white (altruistic). Altruism is always partly self-serving, as is everything we do. We act altruistically because it makes us feel good, gives us a sense of accomplishment, feeds our self-esteem. We help others to help ourselves--to connect with others, be they family, friends or society in general, who we can expect to lend the same helping hand to us in our time of need. Is Draco's desire to protect his family by killing (or trying to kill) Dumbledore really so different from Harry's desire to protect those he loves by killing Voldemort (his stated goal, though he realizes late in the game he must also die to protect them)? Is Narcissa's motive to save her son by saying Harry was dead really that different from Molly's motive to save her remaining children (and avenge her son's death) by killing Bellatrix? Altruism and self-interest, like giving and receiving, exist entwined together rather than as two completely separate concepts, IMO. (And altruism at its most pure is rather cold. Dumbledore acted out of what many would perceive as pure altruism, to save the greater WW society from the terror of a Voldemort takeover, even when it meant sacrificing a number of individuals, some of whom he considered friends and even loved, as well as himself. There was a decided lack of self-interest on Dumbledore's part, yet at the same time many of his actions are not seen by most as morally unimpeachable. So to call Gryffindors altruistic and Slytherins self-serving is drawing a false line, IMO. Same with concepts like courage and loyalty. These traits are not the province of one set of people under a particular House banner, as *every* person displays elements of both in varying manner and degree (as evidenced by some efforts to shoehorn Pettigrew into Gryffindor by saying he has some sort of courage, even if it's merely to face Voldemort while quaking in his shoes--it's a correct assertion,even if courage isn't what I would remotely consider a defining trait of Pettigrew's.) Julie **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Wed Jan 2 01:03:45 2008 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 20:03:45 EST Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180205 Carol wrote: One more purely personal tidbit. Snape is dead, and while I believe he's happy in the afterlife (yes, I do know he's a fictional character), I can no longer think about him in the present. I wish she had let him survive to be headmaster of Hogwarts or at least allowed him to escape to a deserted island to put all of his marvelous knowledge of Potions and DADA and spell invention into books that would actually be useful to Hogwarts students. So much wasted potential. It's a sadder loss, for me, even than the death of poor Cedric at seventeen. The WW without Snape isn't the WW any more. For me, I mean. I'm sure others feel otherwise. Julie: It wasn't just Snape per se for me, although if he'd survived at least there would be one interesting person left in the WW! I also would have taken Lupin. Much as I enjoyed some of the adventures of Harry and his schoolmates, they were still children with no past to live down, no grievous mistakes to regret, etc. They hadn't lived enough yet, not like those characters from the Maruader era. That was one morally conflicted, messed up lot of very imperfect individuals (yes, even Lily!) who made many unpleasant mistakes in life. They were *interesting* because of these conflicts and mistakes, and JKR killed them all off, one by one! (Okay, two were dead to start with, but you get the point). Which pretty much killed a big chunk of interest for a lot of us adults I think. To go on from DH would be to tell stories of what has gone before, such as more specifics about what happened during the Maurader era. And to be honest, I'm not really that interested in reconstructing the past of characters when I already know how their lives turn out. Hence my lack of interest in the second set of Star Wars movies. Who really cares how Vader got to Biggest Badass in the Galaxy, when I know he did and how it all ended for him (ridiculously, but that's a whole other subject, as is the similarity between the sugary meltdown epilogues of DH and the original Star Wars trilogy). Suffice to say I don't really care how the Marauders and Snape grew to hate each other more each day, or how Snape pined after Lily while she never even noticed, etc. etc. But that's me. As for Harry and friends, we know they lived their next 19 years in shades of vanilla, with their tidy jobs and marriages, and their happy homes full of adorable kids. Which is good for them of course, but totally boring for the reader (or at least for me). The only main child character whose life I'd like to follow after the events of DH concluded would be Draco. He had a messed up adolescence and made some serious mistakes, so his journey to relatively decent person and happy life (if either or both are actually the case) might be interesting to read. Or maybe Luna, because she is so incredibly odd that her life would have to be at least somewhat interesting ;-) Barring that we move to the children, Albus Severus, Scorpius, et al. One can only hope they will inject some edginess back into the WW, heck even a bit of darkness, which clearly went missing from the Harry Potter generation of adults! At least I'd need that if I am ever to read books about them ;-) As for that argument about who owns the characters, well JKR doesn't own them in the sense of how we individually see them, but she does own them in a sense that she could at any time decide to write another book about them, making any changes she wants to their lives. For example, she could have Snape reappear 19 years later as Albus Severus goes off to start Hogwarts, saved by Fawkes, by a time turner, by his own potions, or whatever (after all there was no body mentioned in DH, and no portrait). She's likely not going to do this, but she *could*. She owns Snape that way, dead or alive, as well as the other characters, and I think we have to respect that (I do anyway), even while we can continue in our hearts and minds--and for some, in fanfic--to see them absolutely any way we want (which is how we each individually own the characters). Anything JKR says in interviews is either gravy, or completely irrelevant, depending on how you look at it. Either way I personally don't see why some people get so worked up about her interviews. I really don't. But again, that's me. Julie, done rambling for now **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 01:27:53 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 01:27:53 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180206 Julie: As for that argument about who owns the characters, well JKR doesn't own them in the sense of how we individually see them, but she does own them in a sense that she could at any time decide to write another book about them, making any changes she wants to their lives. For example, she could have Snape reappear 19 years later as Albus Severus goes off to start Hogwarts, saved by Fawkes, by a time turner, by his own potions, or whatever (after all there was no body mentioned in DH, and no portrait). She's likely not going to do this, but she *could*. She owns Snape that way, dead or alive, as well as the other characters, and I think we have to respect that (I do anyway), even while we can continue in our hearts and minds--and for some, in fanfic--to see them absolutely any way we want (which is how we each individually own the characters). Alla: This is basically an agreement, but hopefully I can develop the point somewhat. I mean, basically I understand the idea when people do not want to hear the author's interpretation (even though I also think as I mentioned in the past I think it is easy to ignore them from your mental picture) because it interferes with their own picture, I do get it. But displeasure about JKR saying for example that she wants her version to be official, that I do not get and will never get. I am sorry, but no matter how you look at Snape for example, no matter how you view the character without JKR there will be no Snape. It is to me as simple as that. Without JKR there will be no Snape or Harry or Sirius or any other character. I mean, I know everybody knows that, but in my mind by virtue of that her version IS official. If one feels that what she says about characters interferes with their pictures or one does not like tone of the interviews, okay, I understand and accept it, but I will never agree that our versions of the characters are the SAME value as JKR's. They appeared in her imagination NOT ours, therefore yeah, I totally respect that we can look at them and modify as much as we wish, but modify is the key for me here. We would have NOTHING to modify and argue about without JKR giving them to us to play with. We did not invent those characters, she did and therefore if she feels some obsessivenness over her babies she spent so much time with, well, you know what? I am going to forgive her that, even if I understand how it can come up as obsessive and patronising. I happen to think that she earned the right to be obsessive as the creator of the universe. This is my opinion obviously. To me it is the same as reading well written fanfiction, which develops my favorite adults MUCH better than JKR ever did and then reading the review which says that your version is so much better than JKR's. NO, not to me, no matter how much I enjoyed the story, I would never agree that the story which is written in somebody else's universe is better than the original. Without the original, fanfiction author would have nothing to play with, no characters to develop further, etc. I mean, in that clip the woman draws the trees of the second generation, she knows whom Draco married, all other small details. She worked them all out, they are still in her head. So, yeah, my opinion only. Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 01:37:05 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 01:37:05 -0000 Subject: What Blood Status Have Harry's Parents? - Blood in the Eye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180207 --- "colebiancardi" wrote: > > >> "Michelle Brown" wrote: > > > > I'm just wandering, but are Harry's parents pure blood of > > half blood? I think he's half blood, but I'm not sure. > > > > colebiancardi: > > James is a pure-blood wizard. Lily was born of muggle > parents, so she was muggle-born. Harry is half-blood. > bboyminn: Ahhh, but this is were it gets tricky. What Harry is depends on the individual, and what the individual's definitions are. Harry is the result of two magical parents; which means he is a fully (blood-wise) magical being. But since he can't trace both side of his family back through several generations of magical beings, 'Pure-Bloods' don't consider Harry one of them. They see him as a half-blood even though that is not technically correct. For Harry to be a true half-blood, he would have to be the product of a muggle (NOT muggleborn) and a magical being; half-muggle, half-magical. I would say Harry is a Full-Blood, but not a Pure-Blood. Others would say he is a half-blood. Some might take 'full- blood' and say that is the same as 'Pure-Blood', others will not. So, beauty and blood are in the eye of the beholder, each defines it according to his own prejudices. The one fact we do know is that Harry is the son of a muggle-born witch and a pure-blood wizard, and from that you can assign your own definition. As I said, to me, that is full-blood. Though as others will point out, the term 'full-blood' doesn't appear in the books. Steve/bboyminn From juli17 at aol.com Wed Jan 2 01:51:20 2008 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 20:51:20 EST Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180208 Carol: It seems you do care, because you appear to be in a bit of a tizzy yourself. As I said, if you'd read the interviews, you'd know what I'm referring to. And I wouldn't call my own reaction a tizzy, just annoyance at her possessive attitude. She gave us the books, certainly, and I'm grateful to have had the experience of reading and discussing them. I just don't want to be told *how* to read them by the author or anyone else. Julie: I'm curious if you, Carol, or anyone else can post the exact quotes that reflect JKR's possessive attitude or where she tells us how to read the books. I am aware of her comment about Dumbledore being her character, but I've taken that comment in the context it was delivered, which I think was basically a defensive one because so many fans were angry with her for saying she's always seen Dumbledore as gay. I thought it very possible she felt attacked for intepreting a character she created, and while readers have every right to interpret the characters as they see them, I could see where she might be coming from. I feel leery of judging her so completely on that one comment, which was in response to some heavy criticism. If there were others, I'd like to know about them. And I add, I don't really count her answers in interviews to specific questions about the books or characters as a statement that she is telling us how we must read the books or see the characters. Really, if she is being *asked* to reveal how she sees the characters (who they married, what job they do for a living, etc, etc) I can't see this as her forcing her views on us. Sharing them, because again she has been *asked* isn't the same to me as her saying "Character A is such and such, and if any fan sees him differently, that fan is just plain wrong." (Again, I give her leeway on the Dumbledore comment because of the context of the situation, as anyone can mispeak or overstate defensively.) Julie **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From peppermintpattie4 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 02:09:39 2008 From: peppermintpattie4 at yahoo.com (patricia bindrim) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 18:09:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What Blood Status Have Harry's Parents? (Was: Re: Why Harry did not kill Bella WAS: Re: horcruxes) In-Reply-To: <73ab4e570801011426o34813e0bu6b26989240fcc767@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <432761.53880.qm@web90607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180209 --- Michelle Brown wrote: > I'm just wandering, but are Harry's parents pure > blood of half blood? > I think he's half blood, but I'm not sure. I believe Harry's dad was from pure blood family and Harry's mom was muggle born so that makes Harry half blood. peppermintpattie From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 03:42:16 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:42:16 -0000 Subject: An Elfy Response - Criticizing JKR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180210 > Eggplant: > Why not? No poster has given you as much joy as JKR has done, if > you must insult someone insult posters not JKR. If you had aimed > your insults at me I would not have been the least bit upset, but > calling JKR those things makes me mad as hell. They are as unjust > as they are stupid. :Phlytie Elf shifts uncomfortably in his chair, looks in several drawers, finds his elf cap and smooshes it onto his head.: Since the beginning of this list, at least since it has been a Yahoo Group, the Moderators have allowed JKR interviews to be considered canon, and therefore discussed on this list. Criticism of canon has always been allowed, and the Admin team has never stiffled criticism of JKR, her writing, her interviews, her characterizations, etc. Needless to say, criticism of JKR was not as prevelant in the past, but it was there. This list is here to discuss JKR's world, which definitely includes its Creatrix. JKR is a public figure for the purposes of this list. Public figure = fair game for criticism/praise, just like any other celebrity, politician, or Paris Hilton. Though if you want to bring any of the latter in, you better tie it into canon. ;) (And I want to be there when someone ties Paris Hilton into canon. LOL) List members are private individuals, not public figures. Even if some list members are public figures (hey, it's possible!), they are private individuals for the purpose of this list. What the Admin team has never allowed was criticism of list members by other list members. When it happens, most people will not know the Elve's response, since it is always in private and no member is discussed with another member. But rest assured, we do respond. > Eggplant: > That is true you do, and I have every right to say that by doing > so you demonstrate a smallness of spirit. Phlytie: Well, Eggy, you do... but you run the risk of bringing Elven Magic down upon thyself. "You shall not harm Harry Potter", nor any list member! :Phlytie takes off his elf cap, tries to fix his hair from the smooshing, but gives it up as a bad job: From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 03:50:55 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:50:55 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180211 Carol earlier: > As I said, if you'd read the interviews, you'd know what I'm referring to. And I wouldn't call my own reaction a tizzy, just annoyance at her possessive attitude. She gave us the books, certainly, and I'm grateful to have had the experience of reading and discussing them. I just don't want to be told *how* to read them by the author or anyone else. > Julie responded: > I'm curious if you, Carol, or anyone else can post the exact quotes that reflect JKR's possessive attitude or where she tells us how to read the books. I am aware of her comment about Dumbledore being her character, but I've taken that comment in the context it was delivered, which I think was basically a defensive one because so many fans were angry with her for saying she's always seen Dumbledore as gay. I thought it very possible she felt attacked for intepreting a character she created, and while readers have every right to interpret the characters as they see them, I could see where she might be coming from. > > I feel leery of judging her so completely on that one comment, which was in response to some heavy criticism. If there were others, I'd like to know about them. And I add, I don't really count her answers in interviews to specific questions about the books or characters as a statement that she is telling us how we must read the books or see the characters. Really, if she is being *asked* to reveal how she sees the characters (who they married, what job they do for a living, etc, etc) I can't see this as her forcing her views on us. Sharing them, because again she has been *asked* isn't the same to me as her saying "Character A is such and such, and if any fan sees him differently, that fan is just plain wrong." > (Again, I give her leeway on the Dumbledore comment because of the context of the situation, as anyone can mispeak or overstate defensively.) Carol again: I realize that she was speaking defensively, but she still sounds to me as if she thinks her interpretation is the only right one. (This from an author who can't figure out why readers keep saying that there's 24 hours are missing from her first book.) Here are the relevant quotes, at least the ones I know where to find. There may be others that gave me a similar impression. First, the Dumbledore one, from the Toronto October 22 press conference, is sometimes misquoted as "He [Dumbledore] is my character, and as my character I have the right to say what I say about him." But what she actually said is, "It is what it is. He is my character and as my character, I have the right to know what I know about him and say what I say about him. There you go." ["As my character, I" is a dangling modifier, but, oh, well.] http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1022-torontopressconf.html Now, obviously, she has the right to say what she wants to say about her characters, but the implication seems to be that she thinks DD's gayness is in the books and if she says he's gay, he's gay, whether canon supports that or not. She "knows what she knows." Her view is definitive, and the fact that she first said, "I always *imagined* him to be gay" has been replaced by the equivalent of "He's gay because I say so." (Please don't get me wrong. I'm not dealing with his sexual orientation here except as an example of her "he's my character; it's my book" attitude. Evidently, we're supposed to see him as she always imagined him even though very few readers saw any sexual orientation in him at all until the question of DD's ever having loved someone happened to come up in an interview, and when someone questioned her bringing in that information after the fact, she became defensive and we get, in essence, he's gay because I, the author, say he is, even though I never said so in the books.) Unfortunately, that's not the only instance. More recently, under no pressure and talking with various supportive people in a phone interview, she said of the contemplated encyclopedia, "I think the only--The point of doing it, if I'm going to do it, it's about doing the absolute definitive, giving-people-everything guide." http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/12/23/transcript-of-part-1-of-pottercast-s-jk-rowling-interview So even though she admits in the same interview to being confused as to whether Hannah Abbott is a pure-blood or a Muggle-born and that she may end up compromising by making Hannah a Half-Blood, and even though she's still confused about the missing twenty-four hours ("I'm gonna have to really go back through notes and either admit that I lost twenty four hours or I don't know, hurriedly come up with some back story to fill in"), she's going to give us the *definitive* book with which no one can argue because she's the author and it's her world. I just hope she figures out some way to explain how "We haven't won since Charlie left" fits in with "we haven't won for seven years (stated in both SS/PS and PoA) if "the legendary Charlie Weasley" is really only three years older than Percy. Can JKR (could any author) really write an encyclopedia that explains *everything*, irons out all the inconsistencies, and provides definitive information that makes her interpretation official? And do we really want that, even if she can? If I can't interpret the books myself, what, exactly, is the point of reading them? And then there's this quote from the recent UK documentary, "A Year in the Life of JK Rowling," which really confirmed my view that she sees her own interpretation as definitive: "It gives me a certain satisfaction to say what I thought happened [to the surviving characters] and to tell other people that, because *I would like my version to be the official version still,* even though I've not written it in a book, *because it's my world*." http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/12/29/second-generation-information-revealed-new-clip-from-j-k-rowling-documentary Maybe she's only trying to discourage fanfic about Charlie getting married or George marrying that Muggle girl from Ottery St. Catchpole, but it sure sounds to me as if she's being protective of the contents of her own mind, to make sure that her story isn't spoiled by people not seeing it as she sees it. Why, when she hasn't actually written the story, do we have to envision the future as she, at this pre-encyclopedia moment, envisions it? Now *she's* committed to those futures for those characters. Better to have left it open-ended. Who knows? Maybe I'm reading in a possessiveness ("It's my book and my interpretation is the only valid interpretation") that isn't there. She does admit in the Pottercast interview that not everyone accepts her explanations (but seems not to realize that some of those explanations aren't well-thought out or logical and many are off-the-cuff). And I do understand the hunger of other readers who can't let go of the WW and want to know the fate of every character. But if the marriages and family trees were so important, why not include them in DH as a kind of appendix or give us an LOTR-style what-happened-afterward instead of the little vignette with Harry's children at the end? We could still see Albus Severus on the family tree. But then I'd lose one of my favorite DH moments. Sigh. Yeah, JKR, I do realize that you can't satisfy everybody. I just wish you'd take time to really think about it, to understand what the problems with the books really are, before trying to present your "definitive" interpretations. It's a shame, IMO, that Rowling couldn't be left alone like Tolkien to figure out "what really happened." The problem is, she's had too much publicity and all of her inarticulate little impromptu answers are part of the public record. Blame it on the Internet and the phenomenon of super-celebrity, i suppose. Carol, who would enjoy reading the discarded drafts and notes but thinks that the encyclopedia itself will be useful only if it promotes discussion and analysis rather than attempting to do the thinking and interpreting for the reader From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Jan 2 04:50:50 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 04:50:50 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180212 Carol: snip And I do understand the hunger of other readers who > can't let go of the WW and want to know the fate of every character. > But if the marriages and family trees were so important, why not > include them in DH as a kind of appendix or give us an LOTR-style > what-happened-afterward instead of the little vignette with Harry's > children at the end? But of course, that's exactly what she is doing with her interviews. Susan From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Wed Jan 2 05:17:38 2008 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 05:17:38 -0000 Subject: Has Snape's Worst Memory been explained by JKR? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180213 Does anyone know whether JKR explained why this particular memory was Snape's worst? Before DH we had two versions: 1.being insulted in front of Lily; and 2.calling Lily a mudblood. Has JKR commented on that one at all? ...If it was worst because of Lily, too bad for non-reading movie-goers, as Lily wasn't even in the movie. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 2 07:30:03 2008 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 07:30:03 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180214 "Carol" wrote: > if you'd paid attention to the interviews I've read every one, more than once. > you'd know where I got the idea that she > doesn't respect her readers. Nope, I still don't see where you got that screwy idea. > She appears to think that her interpretation > is not only the right one but the only one I would maintain she would appear that way only to someone who was for some reason determined to see her in a bad light. > Do you think, for example, that she > sees Harry as you do Of course not, nor does she demand I do so. If she really felt the way you claim she does she would try to stop fan fiction and not encourage it. > the letter that had no way of > appearing at 12 GP So you think there is just no way the property a man who had died could end up at his parents house, you think the very idea is inconceivable. I don't. > the skulls in the Slytherin common room Unlike her hero Jane Austen, JKR doesn't spend a lot of pages describing furniture and interior decorations, but I don't recall JKR saying in book 2 that there were no skulls in the room. > Ron's and Harry's having no way of knowing > that Draco had obtained the Hand of Glory. > (I'm not complaining that he acquired it off-page. > I'm complaining about theiry *knowing* that > he had one when that's impossible. Impossible?! It's imposable that Draco showed off this rather interesting object before? As for being off page, literature is just like real life except all the boring parts are moved off page. If JKR thought her readers were so stupid that everything had to be spelled out for them in every excruciating detail her books would be as large as the Manhattan yellow pages and about as interesting. And the idea that neither JKR nor her editors knew that we don't actually see Draco buying the hand is ridiculous, absolutely positively 100% ridiculous. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 2 07:58:35 2008 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 07:58:35 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180215 "Carol" wrote: Carol, thanks for supplying the exact quotes that got you so furious with JKR. I've read them carefully and I'll be damned if I can find anything annoying about them, much less anything that deserved the vitriol heaped on her, but if you already hate someone you can find sinister intent when she says "good morning". Eggplant From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 2 11:20:01 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:20:01 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180216 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: Eggplant: > Carol, thanks for supplying the exact quotes that got you so furious > with JKR. I've read them carefully and I'll be damned if I can find > anything annoying about them, much less anything that deserved the > vitriol heaped on her, but if you already hate someone you can find > sinister intent when she says "good morning". Geoff: I hope you won't suffer damnation because that would be a severe penalty for the suggestion you make. :-) I feel that you are not taking on board the fact that, for every one on this group, we make subjective judgments about what is written in the books or said about them by their creator and also about messages posted by contributors to this group. I have read many differing views on the series since 21/07/07 and they can often only be based on subjective conclusions. I cannot claim to be the final authority because I was reasonably happy with DH; I cannot accuse those fellow members who didn't like the book of being guilty of "babbling" or having "screwy ideas" or of being vitriolic. If that is their interpretation, then they have the right to hold those opinions and we need to be careful to ensure that we do not ourselves become confrontational and inflammatory in voicing our disagreements with our co-contributors. If we all said the same things and never interpreted events in differing ways, the world would be a decidedly boring place, wouldn't it? At least, that's my subjective impression.... From KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 11:17:51 2008 From: KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com (kimberleyelizabeth) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:17:51 -0000 Subject: Has Snape's Worst Memory been explained by JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180217 Hi Snape's Worst Memory didn't really play out in the movie, no. B4 DH, it always puzzled me why this was called Snape's Worst Memory. It wasn't a big enough deal, IMHO, to jusify the title. Also it was the only memory Harry had seen that didn't get played out in it's entirity (Spl). So, I always suspected there was more to it than what Harry had seen. This was the memory that caused his friendship with Lily to end. The straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. Kimberley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Jan 2 14:28:25 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 07:28:25 -0700 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts References: Message-ID: <002b01c84d4b$bcca2730$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180218 >> "Carol" wrote: >> if you'd paid attention to the interviews eggplant107 > I've read every one, more than once. >> "Carol" wrote: >> you'd know where I got the idea that she >> doesn't respect her readers. eggplant107 > Nope, I still don't see where you got that screwy idea. Shelley now: May I interject a comment here? It's not just the interviews, but the reader's reactions. Case in point- Dumbledore is gay. Not in the books, not remotely. Some of the readers were OFFENDED by that assertion, yet she didn't respect them enough to just leave the books where they were, and allow all to enjoy them without any overtone of sexual preference being involved in the series. Nope, after the fact, she had to go mess with things and stir up the water unnecessarily. >> "Carol" wrote: >> She appears to think that her interpretation >> is not only the right one but the only one eggplant107 > I would maintain she would appear that way only to someone who was for > some reason determined to see her in a bad light. Shelley: I don't think so. Rowling has been very reluctant to let the readers have this book ending for themselves. She still wants control, as if she's already writing another book and planning it out in her mind. In the interviews between books, she was right to tell the readers, "no, this will go another direction", but since she isn't writing an 8th book (since the interview admitting the idea does appeal to her is hardly an admission that she's actively writing one NOW), then it's really rude of her to insist who marries who and keep changing her mind about things such as Luna-Neville to now be Luna-grandson of Newt Scamander, and telling us of Dumbledore's gayness, instead of letting the readers decide. It would have been better to let the readers take it for themselves to build a future for Harry and his friends in their minds and works of fiction, instead of insisting, YES, INSISTING CONTROL by forcing all the details in her interviews and on her web site. It's as if she really isn't done writing the Harry Potter world. I really thing you are missing the mark, Eggplant, when you assert that only people who are determined to see Rowling in a bad light would come to such a conclusion, because I have no such intent (to smear Rowling) when I come to the conclusion that Rowling really has a hard time letting go of the end of this series. That doesn't put Rowling in a bad light (in my mind) if she still wants to control exclusively the Harry Potter world. I have no problem with admitting that a person is controlling and demanding when it comes to material that they created. Rowling isn't the first artist to want to have absolute control over their material. She's shared in only in the idea that she allowed us to read it, and develop fanfiction about it, but outside of fanfiction, we aren't allowed to develop our own ending for ourselves. eggplant107 > Of course not, nor does she demand I do so. If she really felt the way > you claim she does she would try to stop fan fiction and not encourage it. Shelley: Ah, but fanfiction is FAR from actual published works. In that department, published works, we do have evidence of Rowling's control, for she is suing a fan who was putting together an encyclopedia of details from the works so far (most of which was already published on the internet,BTW), because it was Rowling herself who thought about possibly doing one for charity. She's maintaining her absolute control by that lawsuit. Fanfiction, on the other hand, is free and out there on the internet, and everyone knows that it's far from canon. This encyclopedia that she is suing about would be canon, because it would have been taken directly from the books themselves, a compilation of details already given. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 15:19:26 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:19:26 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180219 Carol earlier: > Eggplant: > Carol, thanks for supplying the exact quotes that got you so furious > with JKR. I've read them carefully and I'll be damned if I can find > anything annoying about them, much less anything that deserved the > vitriol heaped on her, but if you already hate someone you can find > sinister intent when she says "good morning". > > Eggplant > Carol responds: You're welcome. But I neither hate JKR nor am I angry with her, only annoyed by what seems to me her possessiveness about her books. I have heaped no vitriol on her by calling her books good rather than great and believing that she has, perhaps, an exaggerated view of her own genius (understandable, perhaps unavoidable, given the riches and acclaim she's received). But it's a shame that she doesn't understand the difference between an author's intention and what makes it to the printed page, not to mention that the printed page and the work as a whole are interpreted differently by each reader, no one of whom will or can see the work exactly as the author does. And it was Gandalf who found questionable (not sinister) intent in "good morning." Carol, wondering if you have her confused with those people on the list who have actually called JKR "evil" (I only thought it once as the result of a post that I later realized was hogwash) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 15:23:18 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:23:18 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180220 > Magpie: > And plenty more times when it doesn't, and this is one of them. The > reason the times when there's a turnaround work is that for the most > part the narrator is just telling us what's there, and if it looked > like something different than it was we see why/how. There was no > turnaround to this. Harry never learns he was wrong about who showed > up with Slughorn. zgirnius: Harry never expressed an opinion as to whether any Slytherins returned with Sluggie or not. I think he had things he considered more important on his mind, not to mention that if the returnees were not Blaise, Theo, or Pansy, Harry might not even *know* them from residents of Hogsemade, bless his oblivious little heart. Someone could be vaguely familiar to him from having been in Potions and CoMC with him for five years, or from being a shop assistant at Hogsmeade the last time he visited. As Harry expressed no definitive opinions of the subject of whether Slytherins came back, it is not canon that he was "wrong", as you seem to suggest. Since he may not have been "wrong" there is no need to show he was. Harry is shown having no surprise at Phineas's "Slytherins played a part", and he is shown as stating that the House is an acceptable one for his son to be Sorted into at a later date. So either he thinks Slytherins came back, or he thinks the presence of school aged Slytherins in the battle is irrelevant to him in judging the House in light of the actions of Regulus, Sluggie, Andromeda, and Snape (among others whose actions Harry may have an opinion about). Either way, Our Hero has learned, like the Hat and the author suggested, that not all Slytherins are bad, and that the Houses must all play a part to defeat Voldemort. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Jan 2 15:37:14 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:37:14 -0700 Subject: List reactions, was Less than 1000 posts References: Message-ID: <00ab01c84d55$59f7cc70$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180221 From: "pippin_999" > I have to say I am bewildered that a few of JKR's erstwhile fans no > longer have anything good to say about the work they once praised so > expansively. The cynic in me wonders if it's just the reaction of a > largely female fan base to the bitter truth that so many juicy > characters are now dead or spoken for. Shelley: This attitude frustrates me, and makes me wonder if it's the cause in modern society for so much divorce. Is there no longer an understanding that you can have good row with someone and still love them? Do you not concieve that one may be pissed as hell at Rowling for announcing Dumbledore's gayness and still love the series and the author? Can we not discuss Rowling's recent flaws without everyone assuming that we now hate her guts? This attitude frustrated me when we were discussing the Dumbledore/gay issue, for immediately people jumped to the overreaction of "OMG- you're a homophobe!", as if one couldn't express a reaction or an intelligent thought without it being taken to the futherest extremes of bigoty and loathing. PLEASE!!! People, be reasonable! Let someone have an opinion without assuming a bunch of other crap along with it. And by God, please don't assume that we are in love with Harry and can't stand him having sex with Ginny as his wife to bear children, or think that we are pining of Snapey-poo being dead. That's just absurd, and I am offended that it would even be suggested. Rowling's flaws are what they are- obvious, out in the open, and many. Let's discuss them as reasonable people, instead of unreasonable people who have to make up homophobe accusations or accusations of being in love with male characters who only existed in print and in our heads, and portrayed on movie screens. Maybe the real reason for the drop in the postings on this list are because of the posters on this list who seem to be finding hostility and wanting to trade insults rather than to have an honest and frank discussion. I don't have to agree with your opinion to respect you, and I only want the same back. Please, let's get back to that civility so that we can discuss the flaws in Rowling's works for what they are without being called names or having unreasonable accusations thrown at us. Shelley, a female who was never in love with any of Rowling's characters, either on page or on screen, and is not a homophobe From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Jan 2 16:00:14 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 09:00:14 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? References: Message-ID: <00b201c84d58$90adf700$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180222 > Alla: > But displeasure about JKR saying for example that she wants her > version to be official, that I do not get and will never get. > > I am sorry, but no matter how you look at Snape for example, no > matter how you view the character without JKR there will be no > Snape. It is to me as simple as that. > > Without JKR there will be no Snape or Harry or Sirius or any other > character. I mean, I know everybody knows that, but in my mind by > virtue of that her version IS official. If one feels that what she > says about characters interferes with their pictures or one does not > like tone of the interviews, okay, I understand and accept it, but I > will never agree that our versions of the characters are the SAME > value as JKR's. > > They appeared in her imagination NOT ours, therefore yeah, I totally > respect that we can look at them and modify as much as we wish, but > modify is the key for me here. We would have NOTHING to modify and > argue about without JKR giving them to us to play with. Alla, I think people are making an unreasonable assumption with Rowling that hasn't happened with any other author- that she has the right to control her characters AFTER she's put them in print. I mean, just look at how many books have been made into movies, and look at the sometimes huge and gross distortions of those characters. Do those authors complain? Sure, Rowling had the right to agree, going into the movies, on the portrayal of those characters, but beyond that, how much control should she have? Does she have the right to control what the readership will then go on to think about those characters? Certainly, with announcing Dumbledore's gayness, it seems that her opinion IS THE ONE THAT COUNTS, and people swawking about that isn't unreasonable in my eyes. The canon, the books themselves, say nothing of his orientation, and people were free to make up their own minds before her little announcement. Now, the only choice they have is to read the books and ignore all of Rowling's post-books comments, or to take those comments as truth and reinterpret all that she wrote previously. No, I think people are being reasonable in assuming that Rowling does not own our imaginations, that she does not own our mind's versions of what she wrote, and our interpretations and experiences of these books. She merely provided a framework, and like so many movies, we are free to see it all in our mind's eye for what we see it as. She own the print, the legal rights to the books, but not our interpretation of it. She may have started it, but she cannot control that in my interpretation, Snape was a pervert instead of a true friend to Lilly, and that I am not sad at all to see him dead, and she can't control that in my mind Harry was dead wrong for naming his son after that jerk. No one can control my experiences as I read the series, my feelings that I developed for Snape, and for how I see him today, after the last book was read. No one can control the respect I lost for Harry in book 7. Generations from now, long after Rowling is dead, people will still be forming new opinions for themselves as to who Harry and Snape and Dumbledore are, and they will own those characters in their minds. Rowling won't be around forever to tell readers what to think, someday she has to realize that once a character goes out in print for people to read, it's no longer hers but the readers to possess or reject for themselves. She may have wanted Snape to be redeemed, but in my mind he is not, and Rowling, no matter how many interviews she gives, will not change that. She had her chance in canon to express her views, and that's where it ends. The readers take from the books their interpretations. The movie that plays in people's head's when the read those books will never match exactly the movie that ran through Rowling's head when she concocted the idea of the Harry Potter world, and the sooner she realizes that, the better. From cottell at dublin.ie Wed Jan 2 16:30:15 2008 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:30:15 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180223 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > I would maintain she would appear that way only to someone who was > for some reason determined to see her in a bad light. Ok, I'll answer only for myself. I doubt that there is anyone who was more predisposed to see her in a good light than I. For several years, I'd got great delight from her works, I'd recommended them to others, I'd *bought* them for others who weren't inclined to do it for themselves, I'd defended her against charges of bad writing, of moral confusion, of pedestrian prose. I did all of this because I got an astonishing amount of pleasure from the books, and I wanted the series to go out in a blaze of glory which put a huge smile on my face and gave me the final jawdropping AHA! I'll admit to having been worried about the moral arc in HBP, because she *seemed* to be saying something that undermined the message thus far, but I trusted her, because I really truly believed that she would pull it round, that, I suppose, that that would be the Big AHA! And so I queued up at midnight with a long line of others, grinning to myself because this was a fantastic thing, that all over the world people were standing in line in the middle of a summer night to buy a *book*, in a world where literacy is under threat and where we're told that our imaginative scope is increasingly limited. As I stood there, I remembered what Philip Pullman has said: that there are no children's books and adult books, only adult books and books that everyone reads - and I was enthralled at how this was being demonstrated to me. I got home, prepared for a long night of delight - and I was curiously loath to start, because I didn't want the delight to end. I wanted to remain a moment longer in that place where we didn't know, where the possibilities remained as wide as she'd shown us they were. I started, though, and in the first chapter I came across was Charity Burbage. Now, I'd been paying attention. I knew that Hermione had taken Muggle Studies. When I encountered that name, I thought "We don't know who that is". And I got a shock at what I was reading, because my sense of the horror of that scene would have been much greater if we'd been able to reach back across four years and remember Burbage. I sensed a ball dropped. I read on. I found Hermione's memory charm, which I found personally distasteful, and I found her later saying she couldn't do them. I found the camping trip, which for me went on too long and disempowered the Trio. I found Harry's Crucio and MacGonagall's Imperius, set down with no recognition that the terms had changed. I found an Evil Overlord who was condemned finally for not making a choice that the author had deliberately established that he was incapable of making. I found a moral core ripped asunder. And this bothered me, not because I was determined to see the author in a bad light, but precisely for the opposite reason. I admit without hesitation that others are completely free to interpret the text differently. It wouldn't be the first time that I had a very different reaction to a text than other people. But I am not an unintelligent reader, and just as I am prepared to believe that their interpretation is as valid as mine, I assert that mine is as good as theirs. I am simply entitled to be disappointed, just as I was earlier entitled to be delighted. No other reader can tell me how to receive the books, and the author cannot do so either. When she handed DH over at Heathrow Airport to Christopher Little, she handed it over to the world. When she said in interviews that some people might hate it but she had written the book that she wanted to write, I respected that. But no-one made her write it, and after she relinquished it, it was no longer only hers. It became part of the great assemblage of world fiction - good books, bad books, morally cogent books, morally repellent books, intelligent books, stupid books. Where JKR's work stands in that list is our decision to make, and we all make it for ourselves. I have made it for the HP books, and no-one is entitled to tell me I am wrong, just as I am not entitled to tell others that they are. I have read what she wrote, because that was the contract she and I had. If she wanted us to know that Dumbledore was gay, she should have put it in the books, however covertly. If she wanted a loyal band of Slytherins to come back, she should have put it in the books. She chose not to do these things. I can see for myself that the Slytherins didn't come back, because the book she gave me is on my shelf and I can read that part of the battle for myself. She may now wish that she's written something different, but that is something every author has to bear. Did I expect her to write a perfect book? Not even slightly - Dickens didn't, Austen didn't, Tolstoy didn't - but I expected her to recognise what a book is, and the post-hoc interviews seem to show that she doesn't. It's the best you can do at the time, and it's a finite object. It stands and falls as it is, and we write for eternity. It was my right to be entranced, and it was my right to be disappointed. It is not possible to be disappointed by something one doesn't have hopes for. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 2 17:08:22 2008 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:08:22 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180224 "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > I cannot accuse those fellow members who > didn't like the book of being guilty of > "babbling" or having "screwy ideas" Although I would not agree with it, saying you don't enjoy the book is not screwy; However claiming that JKR has become power mad and using perfectly innocuous interviews of her as "proof" of it seems pretty screwy to me. > or of being vitriolic. And saying you've lost all respect for someone and she is an example of the Peter Principle in action seems pretty vitriolic to me. > If that is their interpretation, then > they have the right to hold those opinions You are absolutely correct, but by the same token I have a right to say those opinions are ridiculous. Eggplant, who is nonplussed at the intense rage over some tiny inconsistencies even if most of them were real (they're not) and thinks there must be something more at work here; and who has a hunch that the anger would be a bit less if JKR had just said Dumbledore was straight. From dazz_arlonsy at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 11:05:11 2008 From: dazz_arlonsy at yahoo.com (Dazz Arlonsy) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 03:05:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What Blood Status Have Harry's Parents? - Blood in the Eye Message-ID: <928246.16244.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180225 bboyminn wrote: Ahhh, but this is were it gets tricky. What Harry is depends on the individual, and what the individual's definitions are. Harry is the result of two magical parents; which means he is a fully (blood-wise) magical being. But since he can't trace both side of his family back through several generations of magical beings, 'Pure-Bloods' don't consider Harry one of them. They see him as a half-blood even though that is not technically correct. For Harry to be a true half-blood, he would have to be the product of a muggle (NOT muggleborn) and a magical being; half-muggle, half-magical. I would say Harry is a Full-Blood, but not a Pure-Blood. Others would say he is a half-blood. Some might take 'full- blood' and say that is the same as 'Pure-Blood' , others will not. I also get so confused when I heard Bellatrix (in the movie) called Harry half-blood. I always consider Harry as pure-blood (because JKR only mentioned the 3 categories: pure, half, and mud-blood). Does the word 'HALF' means 'TWO EQUAL PARTS THAT COMPOSE SOMETHING'? Mr. Granger: Muggle Mrs. Granger: Muggle Hermione:----------------Mud-blood (sorry, Hermione...don't mean to insult you...) Tom Riddle Sr: Muggle Merope Gaunt: Witch Voldie Moldy:------------Half-blood Tobey Snape: Muggle Eileen Prince: Witch Severus Snape:-----------Half-blood Mr. Evans: Muggle Mrs. Evans: Muggle Lily Evans:---------------Mud-blood Arthur Weasley: Wizard Molly Weasley: Witch Ronald Weasley:----------Pure-blood James Potter: Wizard Lily Evans: Witch So Harry should be--------Pure-blood (because his parents are both wizard, right? ok. Unless JKR considers half-blood as all magical people whose magical parents' blood have been 'contaminated' along the way by 'muggle-blood'???? But doesn't half mean fifty-fifty? LOL) Dazz Arlonsy From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 2 17:29:01 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:29:01 -0000 Subject: List reactions, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: <00ab01c84d55$59f7cc70$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180226 > From: "pippin_999" > > I have to say I am bewildered that a few of JKR's erstwhile fans no longer have anything good to say about the work they once praised so expansively. The cynic in me wonders if it's just the reaction of a largely female fan base to the bitter truth that so many juicy > > characters are now dead or spoken for. > > Shelley: > This attitude frustrates me, and makes me wonder if it's the cause in modern society for so much divorce. That's just absurd, and I am offended that it would even be suggested. Rowling's flaws are what they are- obvious, out in the open, and many. Let's discuss them as reasonable people, instead of unreasonable people who have to make up homophobe accusations or accusations of being in love with male characters who only existed in print and in our heads, and portrayed on movie screens. Pippin: Huh? If I insulted anybody it was myself, since I had a notable and public Snape-crush. And BTW, I've been happily married for more than 30 years. I did not mean my comment to be read as speculating about the motives of any other person in particular, which would be rude and intrusive, but if we can't discuss the reactions of readers in general and the possible reasons for them IMO it will limit our understanding of the books. Of course not everyone who objects to Rowling saying that Dumbledore is gay is a homophobe, and not everyone who changed their mind about the series did so because they lost their crush object. Nonetheless homophobia and feeling dumped, so to speak, by fictional characters are real observable phenomena, and just as likely to occur among the universe of Potter readers as they are in any other group of otherwise unrelated individuals. I don't think it insults humanity to say that people are flawed and often like or dislike things, including books, for less than admirable reasons. I am reading "The Hound of the Baskervilles" in The Annotated Sherlock Holmes, and I notice that though it is considered one of the greatest mystery stories ever written, it has all the flaws, moral and technical, that people are professing have made them disillusioned with the Potter series. Red herrings are not resolved. Holmes keeps his friends in the dark and manipulates them for no better reason than that he enjoys it, while Watson helps a brutal murderer to escape the law and seems to think that it's no great matter if he goes free, so long as it's not in England. But who can forget "Mr. Holmes, they were the footprints of a gigantic hound"? Too bad there's no way to identify a dog as a hound by its footprints. And maybe there's no way for that letter to have been at GP or for Snape to have known about it, though I can think of several. But claiming this sort of thing is the difference between a bad writer and a good one, or a good one and a great one, doesn't make much sense to me. I am not going to forget Snape crying his eyes out over that letter and tearing the photograph in two, nor clinging to Harry's robes as he tries to hang on to life long enough to complete his mission. I am not going to forget Harry reaching out to pat Dumbledore's arm and glad to find that he could. And I am not going to forget Harry telling Albus Severus that it doesn't matter where the Hat puts him. Anyone else want to talk about unforgettable DH moments? Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jan 2 17:33:47 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:33:47 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180227 > zgirnius: > Harry never expressed an opinion as to whether any Slytherins > returned with Sluggie or not. Magpie: Harry's not expressing any opinion in this sentence (though if you're referring to that one sentence I don't see why Harry's opinion wouldn't be that it looked like shopkeepers, Charlie, Slughorn and friends/family of non-Slytherin students were there, period). The narrator is telling us, using the usual limited pov, what's going on. And all I'm saying is that when I read the scene I read the way I always do, which is to read the words that are there. I don't read a sentence like this and then think of all the other things that it's not saying. This is proving a negative. It doesn't matter imo if Harry would allegedly not recognize members of his own class that we know by name because the narrator has casually used their names in the past (back when Harry was able to recognize them-- the same way he manages to recognize random Death Eaters and other minor characters throughout this battle and the way he managed to name "the Slytherins" earlier this same night)? I just don't read a sentence telling me that Slughorn has entered a room with Charlie Weasley, shopkeepers, and people related to non- Slytherin students and say--ah, but he didn't NOT say Slytherin students who have not been mentioned since they were scene leaving earlier (oh, except for Voldemort saying that those students came to join him) so that means they are there too! Or "maybe one of those people from Hogsmeade used to be in Slytherin!" Arguments about how Harry doesn't care about naming individual students get even further afield, because there's no reason he had to do any such thing (though he would be perfectly capable of it if the author chose to do it that way, contrary to arguments that seem to imply that the author was somehow incapable of writing what's really happening because Harry lacks this ability). Honestly, who reads like that? Who reads a sentence telling us that "the next group to try out for the team were Hufflepuffs" and thinks that's telling us anything but that the next group of people were Hufflepuffs because Harry doesn't know everybody, or might be mistaken, or is obviously wrong because this is the Gryffindor try- out? zgirnius: > As Harry expressed no definitive opinions of the subject of whether > Slytherins came back, it is not canon that he was "wrong", as you > seem to suggest. Since he may not have been "wrong" there is no need > to show he was. Magpie: Harry's not be interviewed here, he's not being asked to give any opinion of who came back. The narrator told me what Harry looked up and saw just as the narrator does throughout the scene and I processed it like, imo, any normal reader who's been told who just entered the room. Just as I was told that the House Elves (not including a group of Goblins Harry didn't recognize) entered the battle or who's fighting with what Death Eater. Of course I can't claim that the Slytherins couldn't have been there based on that sentence--that's proving a negative. By that logic everybody from Dobby to Viktor Krum to Mark Evans *could* be there. It's not a contradiction to say they're there because she didn't specifically say they weren't there (except logically by having them leave and never be mentioned again returning). But I don't think it's in any way radical to say that since the author actually said that it was one group of people entering the room, and never said anything about these other people, it does not say in the book that they were there. This is a pretty consistent view for me in reading, I think, because I can remember taking this same position against many other fan readings that had no positive representation in the text but came down to "but it doesn't say it DIDN'T happen and I can explain why working backwards!" zgirnius: > Harry is shown having no surprise at Phineas's "Slytherins played a > part", and he is shown as stating that the House is an acceptable one > for his son to be Sorted into at a later date. Magpie: Harry already knows "Slytherin house played its part" regardless. The book showed Slytherin playing its part without any mention of actual students returning to fight here. The line makes sense without those students--it has to, because the book never actually mentioned the Slytherins returning and the line was still there. Harry refers to one of those other things when he tells his son he doesn't care what house he's Sorted into (wonder why his son is worried?)--which I think any decent father would have said no matter what and is of course followed by the assurance that if you don't want to be in Slytherin you won't be there. No real change from Book I that I can see. zgirnius: So either he thinks > Slytherins came back, or he thinks the presence of school aged > Slytherins in the battle is irrelevant to him in judging the House in > light of the actions of Regulus, Sluggie, Andromeda, and Snape (among > others whose actions Harry may have an opinion about). Magpie: That statement in no way leads to his thinking Slytherins came back since we've never heard of such a thing. It can easily refer to these other people--especially Snape since that's exactly what Harry refers to here. He says nothing about any Slytherin students returning to join the battle, which puts him in good company since it's never mentioned by anyone anywhere. zgirnius: > Either way, Our Hero has learned, like the Hat and the author > suggested, that not all Slytherins are bad, and that the Houses must > all play a part to defeat Voldemort. Magpie: Which still does not change that sentence in canon to say that Slughorn came back leading a charge of Slytherin students. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 2 18:35:02 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:35:02 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180228 > > zgirnius: > > Harry never expressed an opinion as to whether any Slytherins > > returned with Sluggie or not. > > Magpie: > Harry's not expressing any opinion in this sentence (though if > you're referring to that one sentence I don't see why Harry's > opinion wouldn't be that it looked like shopkeepers, Charlie, > Slughorn and friends/family of non-Slytherin students were there, > period). The narrator is telling us, using the usual limited pov, > what's going on. And all I'm saying is that when I read the scene I > read the way I always do, which is to read the words that are there. Pippin: JKR is being ambiguous about the status of the houses. It's not clear till we get to the epilogue that there still *is* a Sorting Hat or that the house system will be preserved. Then we have to go back, re-read, and realize that text never said the Sorting Hat was destroyed, just like it never said there were only non-Slytherins with Slughorn. The Slytherins with Sluggie are important in the first place only if you think all the Slytherins leaving proved they were no good. But no one ever said that either. Voldemort claimed the rest of the Slytherins joined him which turned out to be a lie because Crabbe and Goyle did not. But the text never points that out, we have to deduce it. We're being asked to use our heads here, not believe only what a stressed and distracted Harry has observed. Albus is worried about being sorted into Slytherin because his brother has been making him think Slytherins have cooties and because it may still be the preferred house of kids whose parents would name them Scorpius. Harry can counter the second worry by invoking Snape. But he can't prove there's no such thing as cooties. Albus will have to find that out for himself. Pippin From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 2 18:35:52 2008 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:35:52 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: <002b01c84d4b$bcca2730$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180229 "k12listmomma" wrote: > May I interject a comment here? As Dumbledore would say I believe you just did. > Case in point- Dumbledore is gay. > Not in the books, not remotely. Not even remotely? The subplot makes much more sense if Dumbledore is gay and Grindelwald is more than just a brilliant colleague, it's more interesting too. And by the way, do you find anything in the books that says Dumbledore is straight? Didn't you think it strange that a straight man could live that long and never marry? Didn't you ever think it odd that a straight man would dress so flamboyantly that even Harry chuckled at him a few times? The hints were always there. > Some of the readers were OFFENDED by that assertion Yes, even before I saw the capital letters I noticed that. > I think people are being reasonable in assuming > that Rowling does not own our imaginations I on the other hand think Rowling does own your imaginations and she intends to sneak into your house and perform brain surgery on you and make you believe Dumbledore is gay. Good heavens people what are so frightened of? If you want to read JKR's interviews then read them, if you don't then don't; if you want Dumbledore straight then he's straight, if you want him gay he's gay. > instead of insisting, YES, INSISTING CONTROL > by forcing all the details in her interviews > and on her web site. Insisting? Forcing? I recognize the words but putting them into the sentence above makes no sense that I cam make out. Eggplant From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 2 19:37:30 2008 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:37:30 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What Blood Status Have Harry's Parents? - Blood in the Eye In-Reply-To: <928246.16244.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <928246.16244.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <477BE7FA.3070208@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180230 Dazz Arlonsy wrote: > Ronald Weasley:----------Pure-blood > > James Potter: Wizard Lily Evans: Witch So Harry should > be--------Pure-blood (because his parents are both wizard, right? ok. > Unless JKR considers half-blood as all magical people whose magical > parents' blood have been 'contaminated' along the way by > 'muggle-blood'???? But doesn't half mean fifty-fifty? LOL) > > Dazz Arlonsy > The easiest way to understand why Harry might be considered half-blood, is to think about it this way: from his 4 grandparents two were magical (James' parents) and two were Muggle (Lily's). So some would say he is half-blood. Irene From lealess at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 20:00:00 2008 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:00:00 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180231 > > > zgirnius: > > > Harry never expressed an opinion as to whether any Slytherins > > > returned with Sluggie or not. > > > > Magpie: > > Harry's not expressing any opinion in this sentence (though if > > you're referring to that one sentence I don't see why Harry's > > opinion wouldn't be that it looked like shopkeepers, Charlie, > > Slughorn and friends/family of non-Slytherin students were there, > > period). The narrator is telling us, using the usual limited pov, > > what's going on. And all I'm saying is that when I read the scene > > I read the way I always do, which is to read the words that are > > there. > Pippin: > JKR is being ambiguous about the status of the houses. It's not > clear till we get to the epilogue that there still *is* a Sorting > Hat or that the house system will be preserved. Then we have to go > back, re-read, and realize that text never said the Sorting Hat was > destroyed, just like it never said there were only non-Slytherins > with Slughorn. > Or maybe she is being straightforward in the text and writing what she meant to write. She was pretty unambiguous about Slytherin being asked to leave en masse in the first place, after all. > The Slytherins with Sluggie are important in the first place only if > you think all the Slytherins leaving proved they were no good. But > no one ever said that either. > Yes, Slytherins could have left for any reason, to save their own necks, for example -- Nigellus tells us that's what Slytherins will do. Some might deduce that Slytherins are "no good" if they perceive that was the reason they left. McGonagall only gave those opportunists the excuse to leave. Others may feel they were forced to leave at wandpoint, and therefore, have not been proven evil. Other readers may feel that the Slytherins were never give a choice, and what can one deduce from that... that Gryffindor McGonagall is a prejudiced biddy, perpetuating House enmity? That the distrust and alienation of Slytherin House is so deep, it isn't even questioned? That Slytherin will never be asked to prove its loyalty to Hogwarts, as it isn't even in the game to begin with? Are Slytherins no good? Various people have varying deductions based on the text and can argue persuasively either way. When JKR comes out with another interview statement, will that be the definitive word on the subject for you? What if she says they are all basically evil? > Voldemort claimed the rest of the Slytherins joined him which turned > out to be a lie because Crabbe and Goyle did not. But the text > never points that out, we have to deduce it. We're being asked to > use our heads here, not believe only what a stressed and distracted > Harry has observed. > I assumed Voldemort was lying during the entire Battle of Hogwarts. His broadcasting was the embodiment of the Big Lie. I didn't have to go back to the text later to realize he was lying. Very well done, JKR. > Albus is worried about being sorted into Slytherin because his > brother has been making him think Slytherins have cooties and > because it may still be the preferred house of kids whose parents > would name them Scorpius. Harry can counter the second worry by > invoking Snape. But he can't prove there's no such thing as > cooties. Albus will have to find that out for himself. > He'll find that out through Quidditch, House points and random interactions on the train, no doubt, not to mention booing of students who are sorted into Slytherin. The teasing of his older brother and the views of his uncle will have absolutely no effect whatsoever, I'm sure. > Pippin > Turning to the question of who came back with Slughorn, did the text say that *any* students came back with Slughorn? Why would Harry think the people were friends or family if they were students? Is Harry really so self-involved and dense that he can't recognize students, let alone some Slytherin students? I think what people are saying is that if JKR really meant to indicate that Slytherins students were there, she could have done so in the text instead of our having to paste a scenario onto the text, or tell us in a latter-day interview. For me, canon supports a position that no students came back with Slughorn. That includes Slytherins. When Nigellus says that Slytherins did their part, my first thought was "Slughorn." One Slytherin, but Nigellus would mention him because of pride of House. Through Slughorn, Slytherin did its part. I mean, what about Centaurs and Mermen -- did they participate in the battle? Just because we are not told they did doesn't mean they didn't, according to one line of thought. Really, who would notice a few horses trampling around the grounds, or spears being thrown out of the lake? An example of a deduction: When Harry says to Dumbledore that he never killed anyone if he didn't have to (paraphrasing), that is similar to a loaded question, e.g., "When did you stop beating your wife?" Unless Dumbledore answers, "I never killed anyone," we are left with the presumption, Harry's presumption, that he did, in fact, kill someone. That Dumbledore killed someone is a perfectly valid deduction within the text, I think. I could get even wilder with my deductions, but I'll save that for fanfic. lealess From va32h at comcast.net Wed Jan 2 20:01:18 2008 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:01:18 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180232 I haven't posted here in at least two months - not because I hate JKR or hate the series but because it is done, over and I've moved on to something else. That happens. I also love the Anne of Green Gables series, and occasionally drop in to a message board devoted to all things Anne, but I don't visit every day. And I collect Trixie Belden and other "girl detective" series from the 40's and 50's and belong to a couple of online communities devoted to them, but again, I don't visit every day. Now that the HP saga has concluded and the questions answered, mysteries resolved, HP has simply become another one of those things of which I am fond and think about from time to time. And for me, yes all the important questions have been answered. The ones that JKR left unanswered were apparently not important to the story. So there's really no point, IMO, in dwelling on them. If it is an issue that particular nags at me, I just make something up. Now in the interests of full disclosure, I was one of the people disappointed in DH. And my way of handling that disappointment was to literally re-write the book to my satisfaction. I would never pretend that my writing is on par with JKR's, but I don't think the plot twists and ideas I had for DH are any worse than the ones she used! I was deeply upset back in July - felt so let down by DH and by JKR. But I'm over it now and still enjoy the first six books and certain parts of DH. va32h From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jan 2 20:04:48 2008 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:04:48 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180233 >>"lealess" wrote: > > When Nigellus says that Slytherins did their part, my first thought > was "Slughorn." One Slytherin, but Nigellus would mention him > because of pride of House. Through Slughorn, Slytherin did its part. > colebiancardi: see when I read that passage, I thought he meant Snape. Afterall, Nigellus would have seen what Snape was up to in the Headmaster's Office and Nigellus did report to Snape on the trio's activities. I never got the impression that Sluggie was leading a pack of Slytherins back into Hogwarts. Ever. I think JKR just made that bit up, on the cuff. If she had meant to write it in, but forgot to or it got lost on the editing floor, that is too bad. Perhaps I would not have had such a bad taste in my mouth after finishing DH. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 20:07:30 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:07:30 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180234 > Eggplant, who is nonplussed at the intense rage over some tiny > inconsistencies even if most of them were real (they're not) and > thinks there must be something more at work here; and who has a hunch > that the anger would be a bit less if JKR had just said Dumbledore was > straight. > Montavilla47: Well, count me in as one of those people who was disappointed by DH, and not because Dumbledore later turned out to be gay. Actually, that's one of the post-book revelations that made me somewhat happy. I like positive images of gay people and, even with his manipulations, I think that Dumbledore is basically positive--whether he killed people or not. :) My experience was close to Muscatel's. I loved the books, especially after HBP. I bought three copies. I sat down and worried only that I'd read it too quickly. My initial reaction was a puzzled disappointment. There were parts that I liked, but far too many parts that struck me as... not as good as I'd hoped. The wedding, the horcux non-hunt (otherwise known as the camping trip), and the ending. Stuff we'd been waiting for for seven books, such as Ron and Hermione being official, fell flat for me (partly because I thought they were *already* together and didn't need them to start making out at the eleventh hour). The big thing I "wanted" to happen, happened. I was very much invested in Snape being Dumbledore's man, having spent two years arguing about that prediction on another forum. I got it. I should be ecstatic. I was also pretty sure that Snape would die, so that didn't disappoint me. And I was happy that he didn't die throwing himself between Voldemort and Harry (as some had predicted) because that seemed too predictable. So, why wasn't I happier? Like Carol, I think it was the inconsistancies that got to me. In the first chapter we're told that dark magic is bad and Dumbledore is too "noble" to use them. This idea about the essential evil of dark magic was repeated throughout the series. And then, in DH, the darkness of dark magic proved to be not just relative, but irrelevant. This was an inconsistency in the moral universe that had been set up. There were inconsistencies in character, as well. Ron and Hermoine's snogfest was triggered by Ron expressing concern about House Elves. But Ron had consistently been kind to elves. So, how could his concern be considered a turnabout strong enough to make Hermione so passionate? How was I supposed to view Ron confronted with the spectre of Harry and Hermione kissing when there had been no set-up for that kind of jealousy on his part? (I mean, if it was Hermione and Viktor kissing, it might have made sense.) The other things that jumped out at me were what I thought of as "movie" moments (such as Harry's quip at using the Crucio, and Molly's "Get away from her, you BITCH!" line). I find those kind of moments great the first time you see them in a film and cheesy the second time. To see them in a book is really disappointing. (Coincidently, I was very dismayed to see the cliched entrance of Sirius in the film version of OotP. "Get away from my Grandson!" followed by the obligatory punch in the nose. Yeesh.) There was also the weird non-story of Draco and the Slytherins. It seemed like Dumbledore had risked so much for Draco-- Katie and Ron's lives for starters--and so there was a lot at stake for me as a reader in what Draco did. And he did... nothing. His strongest contribution for the good was to not-identify Harry. Not that it mattered, because Bellatrix recognized Hermione. So, his strongest good action accomplished exactly nothing. And then there are the Slytherins who apparently didn't run away from Hogwarts (even though they all left), apparently didn't join up with Voldemort (although he said that they did), and apparently all returned with reinforcements (although they weren't actually seen returning). The Slytherins, who turned out not good nor bad, nor absent nor present, nor fish nor fowl. But balding. Definitely balding. Montavilla47 From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 20:12:08 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:12:08 -0000 Subject: Sera non grata (was: Blood in the Eye) In-Reply-To: <477BE7FA.3070208@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180235 > Irene > > The easiest way to understand why Harry might be considered half- > blood, is to think about it this way: from his 4 grandparents two > were magical (James' parents) and two were Muggle (Lily's). So > some would say he is half-blood. Mike: So, if Lily would have had a child with the Half-Blood Prince, would that child be a quarter-blood? Or, if the HBP had hooked up with pure- blood Narcissa Black, would their children be three-quarter-bloods? I think it's easier to acknowledge that all this *something-blood* is a false construct of bigoted minds and has no real meaning to those not predisposed to that type of bigotry. IOW, who cares what Draco thinks someones blood status is? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jan 2 20:59:23 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:59:23 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180236 Lealess: > I think what people are saying is that if JKR really meant to > indicate that Slytherins students were there, she could have done so > in the text instead of our having to paste a scenario onto the text, > or tell us in a latter-day interview. For me, canon supports a > position that no students came back with Slughorn. That includes > Slytherins. Magpie: Exactly. It has nothing to do with whether Slytherin is so important or not, or whether it's not important except the whole end is about wow, look at Harry revealing Slytherin's great now, or alleged revelations about the Sorting hat or anybody lying. Or Slytherin being good or bad or in between. The sentence says Slughorn came back with certain people who are described. It does not say he came back with any students, much less Slytherin students that left earlier. There are no lines that depend on such a thing happening in order to make sense, the story works perfectly well without the Slytherins returning. I thought Phineas was primarily referring to Snape, but it didn't matter--I could see that Slytherin house had played its part-- it didn't have to have students fighting for that. There's not much ambiguous about the sentence, intentionally or otherwise. "We don't know the name and house status of every single person in the crowd" doesn't make the sentence ambiguous. Pippin: JKR is being ambiguous about the status of the houses. It's not clear till we get to the epilogue that there still *is* a Sorting Hat or that the house system will be preserved. Then we have to go back, re-read, and realize that text never said the Sorting Hat was destroyed, just like it never said there were only non-Slytherins with Slughorn. Magpie: Maybe you had to go back and re-read, but I certainly didn't. I read the first time that Harry saved the Sorting Hat--from being destroyed so I never had any worries or questions about whether the hat was alive and well and ready to sort. It was a non-issue and not anything that seemed important. It's not like there was any indication that Sorting was a bad thing, except from Voldemort. And I certainly did not go back and read, "Oh wait, the text didn't say there were ONLY NON-SLYTHERINS with Slughorn!" because I read that sentence the right way the first time too. It says Slughorn showed up with shopkeepers and friends/family of non-Slytherin students. When you go back and read it the sentence still doesn't say he showed up with any Slytherins and not a single sentence later in the book indicates that he showed up with anything other than shopkeepers and friends/family of the non-Slytherin students who had already stayed to fight, or that any of the Slytherins who was saw leave returned. Pippin: The Slytherins with Sluggie are important in the first place only if you think all the Slytherins leaving proved they were no good. But no one ever said that either. Magpie: I don't know what you mean here. What does Slytherin being important or not or why have to do with what the sentence says? Whether one considers Slytherin important or not or good or bad does not change who Slughorn returned with according to the sentence that shows him returning. Pippin: Albus is worried about being sorted into Slytherin because his brother has been making him think Slytherins have cooties and because it may still be the preferred house of kids whose parents would name them Scorpius. Harry can counter the second worry by invoking Snape. But he can't prove there's no such thing as cooties. Albus will have to find that out for himself. Magpie: Too bad that by the logic of the whole "there are Slytherins with Slughorn" argument if Harry can't prove there is no such thing as cooties they are the author's way of cleverly telling us there are cooties. Regardless, still not reading all this importance into the exchange. Slytherin has the same position it had in the very first book, which had to do with, among other things, its connection to Dark Magic, and that still exists. Albus Severus will certainly have to find out what Slytherin means for himself by actually going to Hogwarts, but I don't see any indication in this scene that he'll have to become any more enlightened than Ron is. It's not like there's much change that he's going to be in the house, being that he seems to have the most important criteria for not being Slytherin--that wouldn't want to be there. Which is what Harry tells him. None of which has any effect on the sentence pages before about Slughorn returning to the school with shopkeepers from Hogsmeade and what looks like all the kith and kin of the non-Slytherin students who stayed to fight. -m From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 2 21:00:39 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:00:39 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180237 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > > I cannot accuse those fellow members who > > didn't like the book of being guilty of > > "babbling" or having "screwy ideas" > > Although I would not agree with it, saying you don't enjoy the book is > not screwy; However claiming that JKR has become power mad and using > perfectly innocuous interviews of her as "proof" of it seems pretty > screwy to me. > > > or of being vitriolic. > > And saying you've lost all respect for someone and she is an example > of the Peter Principle in action seems pretty vitriolic to me. > > > If that is their interpretation, then > > they have the right to hold those opinions > > You are absolutely correct, but by the same token I have a right to > say those opinions are ridiculous. Geoff: You know, Eggplant, we have crossed swords a number of times in the past, to the extent that, on one occasion, I even expressed surprise when we /did/ agree! Obviously, we hold variant views on Harry Potter and his world and the works of J.K.Rowling. However, there are ways of expressing disagreement and ways of expressing disagreement; one of them is not, in my view, to rubbish other views by callling them screwy or ridiculous. To me, it implies that the writer or speaker making that assertion is either being patronising or unwilling to admit that there might actually be a different interpretation of the matter and, as I said in a earlier post, no one can claim to be infallibile in responding to a subjective topic. I agree that you have the right to hold a contrary view to any expressed but the apparent harshness of a number of your responses jars against the camaraderie which many of us have shared over recent years on this group. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 2 21:26:43 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:26:43 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180238 Magpie: Albus Severus will certainly have to find out what Slytherin means for himself by actually going to Hogwarts, but I don't see any indication in this scene that he'll have to become any more enlightened than Ron is. Pippin: Ah, now I see it. So, Harry should have pushed Albus to make the enlightened choice and go into Slytherin, not because Albus wanted to, but for the greater good? I really think Harry had had enough of that. Pippin From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 21:32:22 2008 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:32:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? Message-ID: <10547.83645.qm@web30814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180239 va32 writes: I haven't posted here in at least two months - not because I hate JKR or hate the series but because it is done, over and I've moved on to something else. That happens. Pam says: I have to be perfectly honest. I don't know how anyone else feels, but I wanted so much to participate in these discussions but I was actually a bit afraid to contribute. Someone always found fault with the way I posted or felt that it wasn't on topic enough, and sometimes I just felt it wasn't worth the aggravation of having a post returned, or getting admonished about this and that, that I just decided I would be a lurker and post to groups that were, well, looser with the rules and regulations. I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy the posts as a spectator, but when it comes to participation, I want to have fun, and express myself without worrying about a litany of rules. Some rules are just fine and are necessary, of course, but I just had too much anxiety about the scrutiny every time I attempted to post. So that's why I don't. Except for this one. But perhaps things have already loosened? It wasn't that long ago that a thread like this would have never been allowed. I think that our elves are doing a great job, but maybe they're working a tad too hard? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lealess at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 22:21:28 2008 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:21:28 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180240 > Magpie: > > Albus Severus will certainly have to find out what > Slytherin means for himself by actually going to Hogwarts, but I > don't see any indication in this scene that he'll have to become any > more enlightened than Ron is. > > Pippin: > Ah, now I see it. So, Harry should have pushed Albus to make the > enlightened choice and go into Slytherin, not because Albus wanted > to, but for the greater good? I really think Harry had had enough > of that. > > Pippin > *Scratches head* A person agrees that Al will have to find out for himself about Slytherin/cooties. A person offers an opinion that the Epilogue does not contain hope of enlightenment about Slytherin House. Where does Harry pushing Albus to go into Slytherin come into it? A straightforward reading of the entire comment is entirely adequate to understand its meaning, it seems. I could come up with the comment that Magpie really wanted the elimination of the House system and wanted Harry to argue with passion for that on the platform. Isn't that the same kind of reasoning? No offense meant, but I hope you see what I am illustrating here, because I think it applies to some readings of the book. Not that there aren't many ways of reading a book, and yes, readers are entitled to *any* of them as individuals interacting with the text and bringing their own experiences to that interaction. It's just hard to appreciate readings that embellish the original text with information or even intent that may not be there, in the actual text. (I include JKR's interview comments in this category, as well.) Again, I don't mean to cause offense, but I am trying to express the bewilderment and difficulty I face sometimes understanding what I might call fill-in interpretations. lealess From jferer at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 23:26:27 2008 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:26:27 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: <002b01c84d4b$bcca2730$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180241 Shelley: "Ah, but fanfiction is FAR from actual published works. In that department, published works, we do have evidence of Rowling's control, for she is suing a fan who was putting together an encyclopedia of details from the works so far (most of which was already published on the internet,BTW), because it was Rowling herself who thought about possibly doing one for charity. She's maintaining her absolute control by that lawsuit. Fanfiction, on the other hand, is free and out there on the internet, and everyone knows that it's far from canon. This encyclopedia that she is suing about would be canon, because it would have been taken directly from the books themselves, a compilation of details already given." That's very far off base. You are now criticizing JKR for defending her copyright. She must defend her copyright or lose it. Are you seriously suggesting she should put her work in the public domain? She did write these seven books, after all, the greatest phenomenon in publishing history. Forgive her for thinking she has rights in her creation. (Having said that, I think the suit can and should be settled for the benefit of all parties). If it was me in her shoes, I might be trying to get myself deified. You're wrong about fanfiction, too. Many authors vigorously suppress fanfiction on their works. Fanfiction can and has been seen as a threat to an author's copyright; others plain don't want anybody else playing in their world, and they say so. Jim Ferer From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 2 23:26:37 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:26:37 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180242 > > Magpie: > > > > Albus Severus will certainly have to find out what > > Slytherin means for himself by actually going to Hogwarts, but I > > don't see any indication in this scene that he'll have to become any more enlightened than Ron is. > > > > Pippin: > > Ah, now I see it. So, Harry should have pushed Albus to make the > > enlightened choice and go into Slytherin, not because Albus wanted > > to, but for the greater good? I really think Harry had had enough > > of that. Lealess: > *Scratches head* A person agrees that Al will have to find out for > himself about Slytherin/cooties. A person offers an opinion that the Epilogue does not contain hope of enlightenment about Slytherin House. Where does Harry pushing Albus to go into Slytherin come into it? Pippin: It comes in with the idea that something should be done so that Albus would "have to" become more enlightened than Ron is. I may have misunderstood what that meant, but I thought my interpretation was straightforward: Albus must become more enlightened, not by his own wishes, because we agree that's not what he wants, but for some reason which outweighs Albus's opinion of what is good. I disagree that there's no hope that Albus will change his views about Slytherin because I see Harry as having changed his own views drastically. But maybe that's what it boils down to; because I agree if I didn't perceive any change in Harry's views of Slytherin the book would lose much of its impact for me. But it certainly never occurred to Harry prior to DH that a Slytherin could be braver than any Gryffindor Harry ever knew. Harry presents to Albus a more informed view of Slytherin than Harry had. No one bothered to tell Harry about the "noble history" and "outstanding witches and wizards" that McGonagall said Slytherin had produced. Harry wouldn't have put any Slytherin in that category prior to DH, except in the sense that Ollivander said Voldemort was great. For whatever reason it's not enough for Al. And Harry, the grown up, lets Al know that he and the Hat will respect his choice. What else should Harry do? IMO, giving people choices includes giving them the right to make bad ones. YMMV. Pippin From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net Wed Jan 2 23:28:23 2008 From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:28:23 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180243 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Let's look first at what she actually wrote: > > ". . . Harry saw Charlie Weasley overtaking Horace Slughorn, who was > still wearing his emerald pajamas. They seemed to have returned at the > head of what looked like the families and friends of every Hogwarts > student who had remained to fight, along with the shopkeepers and > homeowners of Hogsmeade" (DH 734). Pippin Fowler: I had no impression from what I read that any Slytherins other than Slughorn came back. We do know from canon that several Slytherins are clearly from Death Eater families. My inference from that was that other Slytherins also were either directly related to Death Eaters or certainly would not suddenly turn over a new leaf and come back to fight against others of their house. It seems more likely that Slytherins would have simply stayed under cover, since neither side of the Hogwarts battle was a safe haven. I also did not see Slughorn as having much influence over the older Slytherin students who had been led by Snape during most of their time at Hogwarts. Slughorn was hired by Dumbledore, with Harry's influence, and Slughorn treated Harry well in his classes. If JKR intended to portray a Slytherin defence of Hogwarts, there was plenty of evidence to the contrary that she needed to explicitly overcome. It is nowhere in canon that I can see. Pippin From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net Wed Jan 2 23:39:56 2008 From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:39:56 -0000 Subject: Damn Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180244 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dillgravy" wrote: > > Perhaps this has been discussed, please don't egg me, but I can seem to figure out how in > the heck Peter Pettigrew was sorted into Griffendor. I don't think he showed an ounce of > bravery- exemplifying cowardice in every situation he was in. Where do you find evidence that PP was in Gryffindor House? I don't think JKF mentions it. Pippin Fowler From jferer at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 23:46:34 2008 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:46:34 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180245 Eggplant: "Although I would not agree with it, saying you don't enjoy the book is not screwy; However claiming that JKR has become power mad and using perfectly innocuous interviews of her as "proof" of it seems pretty screwy to me." Eggplant again: "And saying you've lost all respect for someone and she is an example of the Peter Principle in action seems pretty vitriolic to me." Not liking how certain plot elements worked out or how JKR explained them is totally, completely okay. The criticisms are often valid. I am amazed at the harshness of the reaction to them and how easy it is for the author of the most successful series in publishing history to lose all respectability. I think we live in an era of harsh criticism for anybody who actually achieves something. "Eggplant, who is nonplussed at the intense rage over some tiny inconsistencies even if most of them were real (they're not) and thinks there must be something more at work here; and who has a hunch that the anger would be a bit less if JKR had just said Dumbledore was straight." I don't know that the gay thing was the factor here; JKR answered somebody's question and there was this big controversy. There shouldn't be one, because DD's orientation is unimportant. It's only because of the richness of the story that people want to know things like this, or that we pick at inconsistencies so rabidly. Jim Ferer, whose respect for JKR is very high, indeed. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 00:01:58 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:01:58 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180246 In a recent discussion someone accused someone else of rewriting the books. I think the subject in question was whether Slytherin parents or students returned to the castle to defend Hogwarts. And perhaps there was some truth to the accusation. So, what if we speculatively rewrite the books, in fact, why don't we all do it right now? I'm proposing that we each re-write some small aspect or scene in the books the way we think it should have gone, or at least could have gone. But before we do, let's all remember that we can all look back on our own lives and see 'scenes' we would like to re-write. I do this all the time. Now I'm not necessarily proposing that we do this in an especially mean or hyper-critical way; but more just to show how things could have gone differently if people inside and outside the books had made better choices. For example- When Dumbledore is defending Harry at his hearing in Order of the Phoenix, I think he overlooked one very critical aspect that strongly defends Harry. That aspect is that Dudley, the muggle exposed to magic, is already magically aware. He is not a witch or a wizard but he is well aware that the wizarding world exist, and has indeed even met a few wizards and even witnessed some basic magic. This can't be a breech of the Statue of Secrecy because, to Dudley, it is not a secret. Of the charges against Harry, breaking the Statue of Secrecy was THE MOST important, it was by far the greatest of the crimes Harry is accused of. That is probably the equivalent in the magic world of a capital crime; the crime of all crimes. Establishing that the 'secret' was not breeched lessen the charges against Harry very substantially. Now, we just have the common and minor offense of underage magic which I'm very sure happens all the time. Once the 'muggle' aspect of this is removed, it is hardly a crime worth noting. Now Dumbledore can add the presence of Dementors and the testimony of Mrs. Figg, and Harry's minor to insignificant offense actually looks heroic. Turns out they didn't need my defense, but it would have still been a good one. Another example, when Harry comes to his first detention with Umbridge, I think he should have calmly said, it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong. I don't have to prove anything. All I have to do is wait, and time will prove the truth or lie of it. Pretty hard for Umbridge to argue with or take offense at that, and Harry, in a sense, says, when the future becomes history, we will know the truth, until then all I have to do is wait. I don't need to defend myself at all. Or when Slughorn come charging back into the battle, if one sentence would have been amended to say '...and Slytherins too'. So, this is the kind of re-write I'm talking about. Just for fun. If people had made what are good choice in hindsight, the first time around, the course of events would have been hopefully better but certainly different. Anyone feel like playing? Steve/bboyminn From 2syf010 at tingsworld.com Wed Jan 2 23:44:24 2008 From: 2syf010 at tingsworld.com (Gretchen Ting) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:44:24 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180247 "k12listmomma" wrote: Case in point- Dumbledore is gay. Not in the books, not remotely. "eggplant107" wrote: The subplot makes much more sense if Dumbledore is gay and Grindelwald is more than just a brilliant colleague, it's more interesting too. Gretchen adds: I am not the biggest HP scholar so someone will probably grill me on things I miss in the series, but I think it is odd that most of the Hogwarts professors seem to be single, or not involved with anyone that I can recall. Now, I may have missed minor mentions, but no main character save Lupin, who develops his relationship with Tonks after he leaves Hogwwarts, seems to have a love life. I have also wondered if Lily was really all that great that Snape never found another love in his life. That is nice romantic fiction, but not very realistic. Again, not every character needs such detailed description in HP - the books are detailed enough- but the repeated omission seems out of place. Gretchen From 2syf010 at tingsworld.com Wed Jan 2 23:59:42 2008 From: 2syf010 at tingsworld.com (Gretchen Ting) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:59:42 -0000 Subject: Editorial input, was: Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180248 All these discussions and posts about Rowling's writing ability and control are very interesting, but the one topic I have not yet seen mentioned is editorial input. Writers cannot be everything; they may not be able to be both creative muse and critical eye. Writing, especially fiction, needs a good editor. If anything should be criticized, it is the lack of, or lack of strength of the editorial pen. A good editor would have noticed the inconsistencies mentioned on this list. A good editor might have even told JKR that DH needed to be two books and further developed to bring it up to the level of the rest of the series. Now, would JKR have listened? That is another issue. I personally believe JKR made a mistake trying to cram everything she did into DH. Why the rush? To keep to some proclamation she made that there would be only 7 books? I hope not. I can only wonder why JKR did not take more time (years) developing these books, particularly the last ones. Again, a good editor would have seen the work as a whole and guided the process, and although I obviously have no insight into how the books were edited, what JRK allowed editors to do, and how much the editors allowed the almighty dollar to sway their choices, and I will certainly never know. I do know that I sense a distinct lack of a strong editor, and the presence of a strongly opinionated writer. All writers need a great editor, and need to work to accept a critical review of their work. I don't think , as quickly (as far as bookpublishing goes for the depth and length of the HP series) as JKR got her books written and published, that there was strong editing and development going on. Anyone have information to the contrary? Gretchen From liliput99ar at yahoo.com.ar Thu Jan 3 00:03:40 2008 From: liliput99ar at yahoo.com.ar (liliput99ar) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:03:40 -0000 Subject: Unforgettable DH moments, was List reactions, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180249 "Nora" Unforgettable DH moments, was List reactions, was Less than 1000 posts --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > I am not going to forget Snape crying his eyes out over that > letter and tearing the photograph in two, nor clinging to > Harry's robes as he tries to hang on to life long enough to > complete his mission. I am not going to forget Harry reaching > out to pat Dumbledore's arm and glad to find that he could. > And I am not going to forget Harry telling Albus Severus that > it doesn't matter where the Hat puts him. > Anyone else want to talk about unforgettable DH moments? Nora: I share all those moments as unforgettables, except maybe Snape and the photo. I loved the King's Cross chapter, I loved flawed Dumbledore, more than epitome of goodness Dumbledore. Another moment: Harry at Godric's Hollows, it was so bittersweet, and to think that Harry was so lonely at Privet Drive without knowing the fate of his parents, while there was a memorial and the house to remember them. Also loved the epilogue... From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Jan 3 00:28:44 2008 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:28:44 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFE68D2B@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 180250 Steve: In a recent discussion someone accused someone else of rewriting the books. I think the subject in question was whether Slytherin parents or students returned to the castle to defend Hogwarts. And perhaps there was some truth to the accusation. So, what if we speculatively rewrite the books, in fact, why don't we all do it right now? I'm proposing that we each re-write some small aspect or scene in the books the way we think it should have gone, or at least could have gone. So, this is the kind of re-write I'm talking about. Just for fun. If people had made what are good choice in hindsight, the first time around, the course of events would have been hopefully better but certainly different. Anyone feel like playing? Sharon: YAY - -what fun! I'm in. Shall we post to the list or elsewhere? I'd love to rewrite the scene after Harry brings Malfoy out of the fire in the RoR on his broom in DH. :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lealess at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 00:38:20 2008 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:38:20 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180251 -- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > Magpie: > > > > > > Albus Severus will certainly have to find out what > > > Slytherin means for himself by actually going to Hogwarts, but > > > I don't see any indication in this scene that he'll have to > become any more enlightened than Ron is. > > > > > > Pippin: > > > Ah, now I see it. So, Harry should have pushed Albus to make the > > > enlightened choice and go into Slytherin, not because Albus > > > wanted to, but for the greater good? I really think Harry had > > > had enough of that. > > Lealess: > > *Scratches head* A person agrees that Al will have to find out > > for himself about Slytherin/cooties. A person offers an opinion > that the Epilogue does not contain hope of enlightenment about > Slytherin House. Where does Harry pushing Albus to go into > Slytherin come into it? > > Pippin: > It comes in with the idea that something should be done > so that Albus would "have to" become more enlightened than Ron is. > Oh, I see. You read "have to" as a demand, whereas I read it as a condition, as in, "You'll have to experience that yourself before you understand it" or "You have to have fries with that shake in order to really have the full fast food experience" -- not an order, but a statement that one thing relies on another thing. > I may have misunderstood what that meant, but I thought my > interpretation was straightforward: Albus must become more > enlightened, not by his own wishes, because we agree that's not what > he wants, but for some reason which outweighs Albus's opinion of > what is good. I don't think we can change what already is in print, unless we are JKR. It doesn't make sense to make demands on a book that such and such must happen. I can't speak for Magpie, but I don't think s/he was making a demand that Al needed to think one way. Al expresses his fear of being in Slytherin. Otherwise, he is largely an unknown. But, I may be misunderstanding your meaning, too. > SNIP discussion of Harry changing his mind about Slytherins, but let me just say... I can see where people think Harry underwent a sea change in his view of Slytherins, but my reservations grow out the fact that change was undercut on the page. First, the Slytherin in question had to become "good," i.e., non-save-your-neck/Gryffindor-brave, for Harry to appreciate him. Second, there's still that caveat, the "choice" *not* to be Slytherin, at least for Al. Third, just because Harry tells his son essentially that Harry will still love him if Al becomes a Slytherin doesn't mean Harry likes Slytherins in general, or has even changed his mind about them that much, aside from the bravest one, Snape. Of course Harry will love his son no matter what befalls him. And finally, Draco is on the platform, but we see nothing but Gryffindors staring at him and him nodding in deference to them... not really a revolution to me. Which isn't to say that the book has to be different for some reason. I can't make those demands on the book. It's already written. I hope this is making sense. > SNIP > IMO, giving people choices includes giving them the > right to make bad ones. YMMV. > > > Pippin > I completely agree with you. Sadly, nobody we know of but Harry knew there was a choice to be made in terms of sorting, especially since choices show who you are! Three posts -- I think I'm done for the day. lealess From dreamyclaire at hotmail.co.uk Thu Jan 3 00:19:05 2008 From: dreamyclaire at hotmail.co.uk (clairekennyplatt) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:19:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale - House of Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180252 dreamyclaire: Please excuse any mistakes in the editing I've never done this before > > Potioncat: > > I have bowed to the overwhelming viewpoint that this was > > Teen! Sirius's bedroom, and that certain of his belongings > > were brought here after he went to Azkaban. ... I find it a > > little creepy that adult?Sirius would have slept in this > > room with no changes to it; so no, I don't he used this room. dreamyclaire: I did wonder how this letter came to be in teen Sirius's room and I wondered why his mother would have kept it if it was given to her and why she left his room as it was. I have heard of many grieving mothers leaving there child's room as it was but not mothers who were so upset by there child's behaviour, they tend to remove all traces of the child. > Steve: > Are Ground Floor and Main Floor the same, or is ground floor > essentially the half-underground basement, and the Main Floor > is the level at which most people enter the building? Then > are First Floor and Main Floor the same? Usually, UK buildings > are Main Floor (at roughly street level) then First Floor ( > one floor above street level) and so on. dreamyclaire: The main floor in a big old fashioned house is not necessarily the ground floor, It would often have been the first floor. I always saw the kitchen as just below street level a few steps rather than half a flight but that could possibly be more in reference to the kitchen in my mother's house and several friends parents' houses where you always seemed to step down into the kitchen even if only by one step. > Steve: > Back to the house; so 6 bedroom at least. There is a reference > to the Upstairs bathroom, which implies a second downstairs > bathroom; so two at least though I suspect at least three. dreamyclaire: Not necessarily my mother always says the back kitchen but she has only ever had one kitchen, also it would have probably been built pre indoor plumbing (like my house) so it would be difficult to find space for an indoor bathroom (mine is an entire room 15ft by 13ft whereas my neighbour has a downstairs bathroom where my kitchen is, a kitchen where my dinning room is and a bedroom where my bathroom is) so as you can see putting a bathroom in can be quite difficult, this sort of sized house would probably have been built with servents' quarters in the attic and they would be an ideal size for a bathroom. (contradicting my self completely but you get the idea) > Steve: > I suspect reasonably that their is a Study/Den/Library room > as well, it seems very unlikely that a nice house like this > wouldn't have one. > Now, is the Drawing Room the same as the Living Room or Lounge, > or would those be other rooms in the house? dreamyclaire: Yes they are other rooms but a living room and lounge are the same things hear in England, a drawing room could also be called a study; there would have been books, a desk, possibly a small sofa, even a wireless. > Steve: > I have always pictured the Black House as looking distinctly > out of place. Amoung somewhat modern brick and stone house, > it would have a very dark and dreary castle-like quality to > it. dreamyclaire: Whereas I always pictured it to be in a terraced row of identical houses as you so often see around squares in England just looking older and shabbier because of the years of neglect. From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Thu Jan 3 00:38:51 2008 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:38:51 -0000 Subject: What Blood Status Have Harry's Parents? - Blood in the Eye In-Reply-To: <928246.16244.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180253 > > bboyminn wrote: > Ahhh, but this is were it gets tricky. What Harry is depends > on the individual, and what the individual's definitions are. Snip > I would say Harry is a Full-Blood, but not a Pure-Blood. > Others would say he is a half-blood. Some might take 'full- > blood' and say that is the same as 'Pure-Blood' , others will > not. > > Dazz Arlonsy wrote: > I also get so confused when I heard Bellatrix (in the movie) called Harry half-blood. Anne Squires interjects: Bellatrix also calls him a Half-Blood in the book. This is something the medium-that-we-used-to-not-name-on-this-forum got right, "Shut your mouth!" Bellatrix shrieked. "You dare speak his name with your unworthy lips, you dare besmirch it with your half-blood's tongue, you dare---" (chapter 35, page 784) Dazz Arlonsy continues: I always consider Harry as pure-blood (because JKR only mentioned the 3 categories: pure, half, and mud-blood). Does the word 'HALF' means 'TWO EQUAL PARTS THAT COMPOSE SOMETHING'? Anne Squires interjects again: You are trying to impose some logic into a theory based on irrationality. Of course, the term half-blood doesn't make sense. That's something that underlines how stupid the whole matter of classifying someone based on their blood is. Dazz Arlonsy again: (Snippage of example of characters, their parentage, and their blood status.) > > James Potter: Wizard > Lily Evans: Witch > So Harry should be--------Pure-blood (because his parents are both wizard, right? ok. Unless JKR considers half-blood as all magical people whose magical parents' blood have been 'contaminated' along the way by 'muggle-blood'???? But doesn't half mean fifty-fifty? LOL) > > Dazz Arlonsy > Anne Squires now: I think that Harry, according to canon, is a Half-Blood. IIRC, the first time Harry is referred to as a Half-Blood is in CoS by Diary!Tom, "There are strange likenesses between us after all. Even you must have noticed. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles." (chapter 17, page 401) Of course, Tom/Voldemort is a lier; but I think he is telling the truth here. For those who care about blood status in the Wizarding World, Harry is without a doubt, a Half-Blood. Dumbledore also refers to Harry as a Half-Blood. In OotP Dumbledore explains to Harry why LV chose him instead of Neville, "And notice this, Harry. He chose not the pureblood (which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being or knowing), but the half-blood, like himself." (chapter 37, page 842) Dumbledore is also a lier; but here, I think he's telling the truth about Harry's blood status. Harry also agrees with Bellatrix that he, himself, is a Half-Blood. (See earlier Bellatrix quote above) Harry interrupts her rant against him and says, "Did you know he's a half-blood too?" The word "too" means to me that Harry is agreeing with Bellatrix that he's a Half-Blood and is pointing out that LV is also a Half-Blood. In HBP one of the reasons that Harry first connects so strongly to the Prince is that he identifies with his Half-Blood status. Finally, on JKR's website she writes: "Why are some people in the wizarding world (e.g., Harry) called 'half-blood' even though both their parents were magical?" "The expressions 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' have been coined by people to whom these distinctions matter, and express their originators' prejudices. As far as somebody like Lucius Malfoy is concerned, for instance, a Muggle-born is as 'bad' as a Muggle. Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard, because of his mother's grandparents." "If you think this is far-fetched, look at some of the real charts the Nazis used to show what constituted 'Aryan' or 'Jewish' blood. I saw one in the Holocaust Museum in Washington when I had already devised the 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' definitions, and was chilled to see that the Nazis used precisely the same warped logic as the Death Eaters. A single Jewish grandparent 'polluted' the blood, according to their propaganda." End JKR quote Anne Squires continues: Thus, it's one's grandparents that determines one's blood status. If any one of a wizard's grandparents are/were a Muggle then that person is a Half-Blood. I think a more interesting discussion than debating whether Harry is a Half-Blood or not would be to discuss why JKR made him one. Here are my ideas: 1. I think JKR didn't want her hero to be a pureblood. I think she wanted him to relate to the prejudice of the WW on a first hand basis. When someone such as Snape or Malfoy put down another character (Hermione, Lily) because of their blood status, Harry can empathize instead of merely sympathize with the person being disparaged. 2. Furthermore, he is not in the elite class; this makes him more of an "Everyman." It makes him more "just Harry." 3. It makes him more like LV and Snape. Harry, LV, and Snape, imho, are the three main characters in the series. Anne Squires (who can't decide if Half-Blood should be capitalized, or not) From va32h at comcast.net Thu Jan 3 00:48:05 2008 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:48:05 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180254 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > So, what if we speculatively rewrite the books, in fact, why > don't we all do it right now? va32h: Well I've mentioned before that I rewrote the whole darn thing, which was really a very fun and therapeutic process. One of my first changes was letting Hedwig live; Harry sets her free with the admonish to take care of herself and come looking for him again when it's safe. I just found it hard to believe that Harry - who had been cruelly confined so much of his life - would keep Hedwig penned up in a cage once he was free of the Dursleys. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 00:53:14 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:53:14 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back - Into the Great Unknown. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180255 --- "Pippin" <1kf.lists at ...> wrote: > > --- "Carol" wrote: > > > > Let's look first at what she actually wrote: > > > > "... Harry saw Charlie Weasley overtaking Horace Slughorn, > > who was still wearing his emerald pajamas. They seemed to > > have returned at the head of what looked like the families > > and friends of every Hogwarts student who had remained to > > fight, along with the shopkeepers and homeowners of > > Hogsmeade" (DH 734). > > Pippin Fowler: > I had no impression from what I read that any Slytherins > other than Slughorn came back. ... Slytherins are ... from > Death Eater families. ... and [would not]come back to fight > .... It seems more likely that Slytherins would have simply > stayed under cover, since neither side... was a safe haven. > bboyminn: Here's the thing, this scene is ambiguous. It doesn't say '...but no Slytherins' but it also doesn't say '...and Slytherins too'. Because of this we are free to interpret as our preferences lead us. I'm not one to believe that all who are assigned to Slytherin House are doomed to a life of evil. We have only seen SOME Slytherins and it is not fair to judge them all by the actions of a few, or by the biased opinion of Harry. Note, during the Thestral lessons, Harry sees a Slytherin student he has been in classes with for years, yet he doesn't know the kids name. That kid can't have rated very high on Harry's radar screen; that kid couldn't have been getting in Harry's face or Harry would have known who he was. I think Slytherins are more likely to be or do evil, but I really don't see all Slytherins as evil or even bad. Because I have a more positive view of Slytherins, I'm inclined to think that some Slytherins did return (either parents and/or students). I suspect if you have a negative view of Slytherin, you are more likely to think they did not come back. Keep in mind that we don't necessarily know the Houses of the friends, family, shopkeepers, or residents of Hogsmeade. That may actually be what JKR intended, to make it ambiguous so we could each fantasize as we saw fit regarding Slytherins in the last battle. Still, I think that choice was a mistake. She had set up the joining of the Houses theme, and I think she didn't follow through on it. The unity of the House was not a product of my imagination, and the resolution of that theme should also not be a product of my imagination. But since it was ambiguous, and because I very much have a positive view of Slytherins, and because I want them to be there, in my mind they are. On a related, but side note, I want to remind people who are complaining about JKR making statements as if she is dictating the content of the off-page aspects of the books, that JKR is responding, in nearly every case, to direct questions. She didn't tell us Dumbledore was gay, someone asked her about Dumbledore's love life, and she responded with the truth as she saw it. And she said that she wasn't really hiding this information, it was just that no one had every asked her before. The implication was that if we had asked earlier, she would have answered earlier. People complain that JKR is dictating who does what job and who marries who after the end of the series, but again, people specifically asked what kind of work important characters did and what kind of jobs they got. JKR answer with HER VIEW of what happened to the characters after the last page of the book. They asked, she answered. I really don't see how you can fault her for that. We asked, she answered. If we don't want to know, then we really shouldn't ask. I don't think JKR is dictating anything to us. She said she thought Dumbledore was gay. You really are free to not agree with that. You are free to say to yourself and others that, well I can see how some people might reach that conclusion, but I think they are wrong; Dumbledore was straight. JKR responded that Ron married Hermione, and I am absolutely convinced that they are H/H shipper out there who simply will not and do not accept that. As far as they are concerned books or no books, Harry loves Hermione. JKR is giving her view of what happens off page, and you are free to disagree. I'm sure there are tons of fan fiction in which Harry loves Draco, and Dumbledore and Sirius are still alive. JKR's views didn't stop these people from imagining an alternative view. In my opinion, JKR isn't dictating anything to anyone. People are asking for her view on various matters and she is responding with /her/ view. Where is the fault in that? Steve/bboymimm From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jan 2 15:31:52 2008 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:31:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Has Snape's Worst Memory been explained by JKR? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477BAE68.8050909@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180256 kvapost wrote: > Does anyone know whether JKR explained why this particular memory was > Snape's worst? Before DH we had two versions: 1.being insulted in > front of Lily; and 2.calling Lily a mudblood. > Has JKR commented on that one at all? > ...If it was worst because of Lily, too bad for non-reading > movie-goers, as Lily wasn't even in the movie. Bart: I think it was kind of obvious that this was the incident (albeit a final straw) that destroyed his friendship with Lily, which was, after all, his only real friendship (the Slytherin friendships were more like alliances than friendships; "you do for me and I'll do for you" types). Most people have, based on pressures, given in to an impulse to do or say something which screw up things, at least temporarily. Snape, in a moment of anger, destroyed something he had spent half his life building. That qualifies it for "worst memory", don't you think? Bart From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Jan 3 01:09:42 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:09:42 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts References: Message-ID: <008f01c84da5$535f3470$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180257 > Shelley: "Ah, but fanfiction is FAR from actual published works. In > that department, published works, we do have evidence of Rowling's > control, for she is suing a fan who was putting together an > encyclopedia of details from the works so far (most of which was > already published on the internet,BTW), because it was Rowling herself > who thought about possibly doing one for charity. She's maintaining > her absolute control by that lawsuit. Fanfiction, on the other hand, > is free and out there on the internet, and everyone knows that it's > far from canon. This encyclopedia that she is suing about would be > canon, because it would have been taken directly from the books > themselves, a compilation of details already given." > > Jim Ferer > That's very far off base. You are now criticizing JKR for defending > her copyright. You must have misread my post- I was not criticizing Rowling. I was backing up the thesis I had that she was controlling the show. > She must defend her copyright or lose it. Are you > seriously suggesting she should put her work in the public domain? She > did write these seven books, after all, the greatest phenomenon in > publishing history. What I was talking about was not about the "right" to defend one's work against copyright infringement. Indeed, I believe that a comprehensive encyclopedia listing the times, events and people in the series would not be a copyright infringement, if it was put together correctly. What we were talking about is the level of control that Rowling still wants to have now over everything Harry Potter, as if someone now couldn't write a book similar to several others out there analyzing the HB books that appeared several books ago, long before the series long before it was finished. This encyclopedia would not be the rewriting of one book, but taking details from 7 of them, and thus it could be done by someone else without violating that copyright. My point was now that the series is done, Rowling seems to have tightened her grip on who else can even comment on her works. Shelley From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 01:13:40 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:13:40 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFE68D2B@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180258 --- Sharon Hayes wrote: > > Steve: > ... > > So, what if we speculatively rewrite the books, in fact, why > don't we all do it right now? > > I'm proposing that we each re-write some small aspect or > scene in the books the way we think it should have gone, or > at least could have gone. > > ... Just for fun. ... > > Anyone feel like playing? > Sharon: > YAY - -what fun! I'm in. Shall we post to the list or > elsewhere? I'd love to rewrite the scene after Harry > brings Malfoy out of the fire in the RoR on his broom in > DH. :-) > bboyminn: Just write them out here, you saw my examples. The only caution I would give is that this is not a fan fiction group. Quick overviews with summaries, and a limited amount of dialog and narration. Since we are already re-writing in our mind, let's put some of that down on paper (or in electrons) and see if we can enjoy ourselves and maybe stimulate some new discussion on various matters. Again, long detailed fan fictions are probably not going to make it past the Moderators, but general description of alternate ways certain scenes could have played out, and what the repercussion are or would be on the story, I think are fair game. Steve/bboymin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 01:23:01 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:23:01 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180259 --- "va32h" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > So, what if we speculatively rewrite the books, in fact, why > > don't we all do it right now? > > va32h: > > Well I've mentioned before that I rewrote the whole darn thing, > which was really a very fun and therapeutic process. > > One of my first changes was letting Hedwig live; Harry sets > her free with the admonish to take care of herself and come > looking for him again when it's safe. I just found it hard > to believe that Harry - who had been cruelly confined so much > of his life - would keep Hedwig penned up in a cage once he > was free of the Dursleys. > bboyminn: Oh, on this I agree, how many times has Harry let Hedwig loose only to have Hedwig show up on her own at Harry's new location. She found him at Diagon Alley (the Leaky Cauldron in POA), she found him at Grimmauld Place, why not just let her go and say come fine me when it is safe. Makes perfect sense to me. Even though I have long predicted Hedwig's death, it didn't make it any less painful when it happened. And in some sense I feel cheated. Things were happening so fast and furious in those moments and in the time after, there really wasn't time to stop a grieve for Hedwig. She was just gone. I suspect that's the way it is in real war too. One minute the soldier next to you is there, then he is gone, but the battle rages on and there is no time to stop an grieve, and so, you never really do your grieving. I think that is a factor in Post Tramatic Stress Disorder, unresolved grieving. That's OK, I've decided in my universe Hedwig is still alive. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 01:38:05 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:38:05 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back and some other staff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180260 Lealess: An example of a deduction: When Harry says to Dumbledore that he never killed anyone if he didn't have to (paraphrasing), that is similar to a loaded question, e.g., "When did you stop beating your wife?" Unless Dumbledore answers, "I never killed anyone," we are left with the presumption, Harry's presumption, that he did, in fact, kill someone. That Dumbledore killed someone is a perfectly valid deduction within the text, I think. Alla: Valid? Sure it is, but I do not call it a valid deduction within the text, I call it valid text based speculation, because to me it is based on vague, completely unsupported by canon assumption that Harry in turn has ANY reason to make this assumption. For that reason this assumption is really to me not that different from assuming that Slytherins came back, some of them I mean. Oh and again **I** did not make that assumption, but I totally thought it was the valid one. Lealess: I can see where people think Harry underwent a sea change in his view of Slytherins, but my reservations grow out the fact that change was undercut on the page. First, the Slytherin in question had to become "good," i.e., non-save-your-neck/Gryffindor-brave, for Harry to appreciate him. Second, there's still that caveat, the "choice" *not* to be Slytherin, at least for Al. Third, just because Harry tells his son essentially that Harry will still love him if Al becomes a Slytherin doesn't mean Harry likes Slytherins in general, or has even changed his mind about them that much, aside from the bravest one, Snape. Of course Harry will love his son no matter what befalls him. And finally, Draco is on the platform, but we see nothing but Gryffindor staring at him and him nodding in deference to them... not really a revolution to me. Alla; Right, here I am definitely making this argument ? that Harry underwent a sea of change and the argument that he did not really makes me scratch my head . I mean, this is the kid who was told that all bad witches and wizards come from Slytherin and here we see him naming his son for goodness sake, his little one after Slytherin and the one who hated him to boot. When ever before Harry would have honored Slytherin, any Slytherin that way? In Jewish tradition kids are named after people we love and respect, yes? I definitely think it is a change for Harry. Whether it is a huge societal change shown, well, no, but I think it is shown the step into that direction. But really all that I am asking is that other side saw that as valid argument, that's all. We have on page IMO Harry doing the act of tremendous significance that honors Slytherin. I think it is a huge change for him, Harry I mean, yes. Magpie: Harry's not expressing any opinion in this sentence (though if you're referring to that one sentence I don't see why Harry's opinion wouldn't be that it looked like shopkeepers, Charlie, Slughorn and friends/family of non-Slytherin students were there, period). Alla: Because he does not know all of them? Magpie: The narrator is telling us, using the usual limited pov, what's going on. And all I'm saying is that when I read the scene I read the way I always do, which is to read the words that are there. I don't read a sentence like this and then think of all the other things that it's not saying. This is proving a negative. It doesn't matter imo if Harry would allegedly not recognize members of his own class that we know by name because the narrator has casually used their names in the past (back when Harry was able to recognize them-- the same way he manages to recognize random Death Eaters and other minor characters throughout this battle and the way he managed to name "the Slytherins" earlier this same night)? Alla: Or it is using shortcut for something that is meant to be mentioned in passing. Another example of such I remember I think it was Betsy ( help me dear) who argued at some point that Dumbledore making Harry to relive Graveyeard stands as short cut for Harry undergoing therapy. I mean, where do we have in canon that Harry had therapy? She was arguing if I remember correctly that it had symbolic meaning. Same thing that I am saying here pretty much ? just as for her Dumbledore talking to Harry stood for therapy of the sort, for me Slughorn stands as symbol of Slytherins. Of course the explicit words are not there, who says that they are? But I believe that what IS there could be interpreted that way ? does not HAVE to be, but could be. That is all I am saying. Shelley: "Ah, but fanfiction is FAR from actual published works. In that department, published works, we do have evidence of Rowling's control, for she is suing a fan who was putting together an encyclopedia of details from the works so far (most of which was already published on the internet,BTW), because it was Rowling herself who thought about possibly doing one for charity. She's maintaining her absolute control by that lawsuit. Alla: She is suing somebody who from what I understand wants to make money from her work, NOT from commentary of her work, but from her work. This is a breach of copyright. If the book contains essays, that is a different story and could go under fair use, if it does not contain the essays, I have no sympathy whatsoever. Oh and it is published for free on the Internet ? big difference I think Jim Ferrer: That's very far off base. You are now criticizing JKR for defending her copyright. She must defend her copyright or lose it. Are you seriously suggesting she should put her work in the public domain? She did write these seven books, after all, the greatest phenomenon in publishing history. Forgive her for thinking she has rights in her creation. Alla: I know, word of agreement. Shelley: You must have misread my post- I was not criticizing Rowling. I was backing up the thesis I had that she was controlling the show. Alla: Well, if by controlling the show you meant controlling her copyright, I am not sure what is so unusual about it. Shelley now: May I interject a comment here? It's not just the interviews, but the reader's reactions. Case in point- Dumbledore is gay. Not in the books, not remotely. Some of the readers were OFFENDED by that assertion, yet she didn't respect them enough to just leave the books where they were, and allow all to enjoy them without any overtone of sexual preference being involved in the series. Nope, after the fact, she had to go mess with things and stir up the water unnecessarily. Alla: Um, and still I know several readers who guessed Dumbledore being gay BEFORE she ever said it, so apparently what seems to be not even remotely for you, was enough for them to pick up on it. Accordingly yes, I think it was her absolute right to respond to the question she was given. And no, I do not think she had to leave the books as is, I totally understand how after years of not being able to share all background on the characters, and she wants to share with us now. And again I was not one of those readers, I did not guess it, but I certainly think that Dumbledore and Gridenwald make much more sense with Dumbledore being gay. From yvaine28 at gmail.com Thu Jan 3 01:34:00 2008 From: yvaine28 at gmail.com (meann ortiz) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:34:00 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Editorial input, was: Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d7223330801021734y28b55b6bk1db4ee5d9c81dfc8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180261 Gretchen Ting wrote: All these discussions and posts about Rowling's writing ability and control are very interesting, but the one topic I have not yet seen mentioned is editorial input. Meann's reply: I don't know much about the editorial process either, but I do remember Jo has a Continuity Editor at Scholastic. This is the person responsible for spotting certain inconsistencies and resolving them with Jo. ---*meann [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kjones at telus.net Thu Jan 3 02:25:37 2008 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:25:37 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477C47A1.90609@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 180262 Steve wrote: > > bboyminn: > > Just write them out here, you saw my examples. The only > caution I would give is that this is not a fan fiction > group. Quick overviews with summaries, and a limited amount > of dialog and narration. > > Since we are already re-writing in our mind, let's put some > of that down on paper (or in electrons) and see if we can > enjoy ourselves and maybe stimulate some new discussion on > various matters. > > Again, long detailed fan fictions are probably not going to > make it past the Moderators, but general description of > alternate ways certain scenes could have played out, and > what the repercussion are or would be on the story, I think > are fair game. > > Steve/bboymin KJ writes: I'm not sure which scene I hated the most, there are quite a few, but one that bugs me, is Harry walking through the forest to give himself up to die. Having his parents, Sirius, and Lupin there just made the gag reflex worse. I recall on the list when many of us thought that Harry would offer up his life, most of the list came down like a ton of bricks quoting teen suicide statistics. I expected to see Harry go in a fight, not the way JKR killed him. That whole story line is just silly. KJ From va32h at comcast.net Thu Jan 3 02:36:26 2008 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 02:36:26 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180263 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Even though I have long predicted Hedwig's death, it didn't > make it any less painful when it happened. And in some sense > I feel cheated. Things were happening so fast and furious in > those moments and in the time after, there really wasn't time > to stop a grieve for Hedwig. She was just gone. > > I suspect that's the way it is in real war too. One minute > the soldier next to you is there, then he is gone, but the > battle rages on and there is no time to stop an grieve, and > so, you never really do your grieving. I think that is a > factor in Post Tramatic Stress Disorder, unresolved grieving. > > That's OK, I've decided in my universe Hedwig is still alive. va32h: And mine too. I can see Hedwig's death representing the death of Harry's childhood and innocence...but I also see Hedwig representing the joyous aspect of the magical world - she is Harry's first birthday gift and his sole magical companion when he is stuck in the Muggle world. Her departure could represent the descent into war as easily as her death. And her return (in my version she would swoop into the Great Hall during the post-Battle celebration) would represent the return of happiness to the wizarding world. Another one of my changes involves Hermione's ever-so convenient discovery of the All About Horcruxes book. I found JKR's version a little too coincidental. So instead I sent Harry back to Hogwarts for a clandestine meeting with the only living person he knows who has heard of Horcruxes - Slughorn. It's a comedic moment, as Hagrid basically kidnaps Slughorn in order to get him to comply. And in true Sluggy fashion, Horace promptly removes the memory of his conversation with Harry, to cover his own behind. va32h From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 02:36:29 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 02:36:29 -0000 Subject: Which scene we hated more or loved WAS: Re: Why not Actually Re-Write? In-Reply-To: <477C47A1.90609@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180264 > KJ writes: > I'm not sure which scene I hated the most, there are quite a few, but > one that bugs me, is Harry walking through the forest to give himself up > to die. Having his parents, Sirius, and Lupin there just made the gag > reflex worse. I recall on the list when many of us thought that Harry > would offer up his life, most of the list came down like a ton of bricks > quoting teen suicide statistics. I expected to see Harry go in a fight, > not the way JKR killed him. That whole story line is just silly. Alla: Hee, to each their own. LOVED that scene. Cried a lot when read it. I totally expected the sacrifice from Harry - was hoping that it will not needed or something will save him, but thought it to be very likely. Harry doing it I mean. I cannot offer my old posts, but I seem to remember I did. I mean, I thought sacrifice at the end will be very thematically appropriate. And of course I did not see it as suicide or anything like that. I saw it as conscious decision and not Dumbledore related either - loved that Dumbledore was not among the people Harry called on. See, even now I am typing it, I am amazed at how well she does shortcuts IMO. Not many words about how Harry was hurt by what he heard Dumbledore wanting him to die, whether it was true or not. Only - Dumbledore's betrayal was almost nothing AND Dumbledore is not among his loved ones. I thought it was brilliant personally. IMO Alla. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jan 3 02:46:24 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 02:46:24 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180265 > Magpie: > > Albus Severus will certainly have to find out what > Slytherin means for himself by actually going to Hogwarts, but I don't > see any indication in this scene that he'll have to become any more > enlightened than Ron is. > > Pippin: > Ah, now I see it. So, Harry should have pushed Albus to make the > enlightened choice and go into Slytherin, not because Albus wanted to, > but for the greater good? I really think Harry had had enough of that. Magpie: No, that's not what I meant at all. At first I was confused as to where that came from--but I saw you explained it. My "have to" was just saying that I didn't see any evidence that Albus would be forced by anything to become more enlightened about Slytherin than Ron--but the idea that Harry should have pushed Albus into anything--much less an enlightened choice about Slytherin--never entered my mind. The Hat will choose Albus' house, just the way it chooses everyone's house. It's really not up to Albus. However, the fact that he's worried about being in Slytherin seems to obviously point to his not being put there. I honestly have no opinion about what Harry "should have" said to Albus--I'm just commenting on what I think he actually said, which was a nice encouragement of "don't worry about the Sorting, your mother and I love you as Albus not as your house affiliation--but if it really bothers you, I was worried too about being a Slytherin and because I shared that worry with the Hat it didn't Sort me there." Not only does tihs not seem like a bad thing for Harry to say, it seems like what I might have said in his place. First I'd say it didn't matter what house Albus was in, but then, since I know that it's easy enough for me to say as a parent it doesn't matter and that wouldn't really help him, I'd share that I actually understood that very fear and know why he doesn't need to fear it. Pippin: It comes in with the idea that something should be done so that Albus would "have to" become more enlightened than Ron is. Magpie: No, I definitely didn't mean I thought Al had to become more enlightened than Ron is. I'm just describing what I see in the scene. Actually, I don't even think enlightened attitudes matter much. There are characters with positive views of Slytherin already--the ones who get Sorted there it seems. Anything more enlightened seems like it might just be wrong. Eggplant: The subplot makes much more sense if Dumbledore is gay and Grindelwald is more than just a brilliant colleague, it's more interesting too. Magpie: More interesting quite possibly--I admit I sort of added it as I was reading! But I don't think it makes more sense. It doesn't fill any holes since the book provided alternate motivation. bboyminn: Here's the thing, this scene is ambiguous. It doesn't say '...but no Slytherins' but it also doesn't say '...and Slytherins too'. Because of this we are free to interpret as our preferences lead us. Magpie: The moment just doesn't read as ambiguous to me in any way. The sentence doesn't make it any more ambiguous that Slughorn's brought back the Slytherins than it's ambiguous as to whether or not Slughorn hasn't brought back an army of Inferi, Sirius Black or the Captain and Tenille. She doesn't need to say "but no Slytherins" since they wouldn't naturally be included in the group anyway. There's an infinite amount of things that the author doesn't tell us didn't happen--the books made up of things we hear did happen. Things like Harry's not knowing Theo Nott's name back in fifth year or Slytherin's acting less than evilly anywhere else are imo irrelevent. Steve: Keep in mind that we don't necessarily know the Houses of the friends, family, shopkeepers, or residents of Hogsmeade. Magpie: My vote goes to that he knows because this is just the narrator telling us what's going on in the battle and we're not supposed to be caring about stuff like how Harry has recognized these people (though it certainly seems to shoot down the idea that he couldn't recognize people he knows even better). Jim Ferer: That's very far off base. You are now criticizing JKR for defending her copyright. She must defend her copyright or lose it. Are you seriously suggesting she should put her work in the public domain? Magpie: No, that's trademark you lose by not defending it. You can't lose copyright by not defending it. Though I agree that some authors are vocally against fanfic. But if we're talking about the encyclopedia I support Rowling there. I don't think she's being unreasonable at all. Fanfic is in a grey area (with the understanding that people on either side think it's black or white!)--I don't think fanfic is copyright infringement myself, but Rowling is one of the authors who's supportive of it. -m From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 02:51:38 2008 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 02:51:38 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: <008f01c84da5$535f3470$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180266 Shelley: "You must have misread my post- I was not criticizing Rowling. I was backing up the thesis I had that she was controlling the show." Shelley: "She's maintaining her absolute control by that lawsuit." Again, she **must** defend her copyright or lose it. It could be argued that Steve's Harry Potter Lexicon is fair use because it is criticism, but that's by no means settled. (OT to this topic: JKR and Steve should settle this. There's several ways they could. Maybe they will.) The notion that JKR is stifling discussion of her work is grossly overstated. Shelley: "This encyclopedia would not be the rewriting of one book, but taking details from 7 of them, and thus it could be done by someone else without violating that copyright." The companion books were pretty clearly criticism and thus fair use. Why didn't JKR sue them, though, just as intimidation, if she's so controlling? It's been done before, by others. The Lexicon is far more doubtful. You speak of it as if the copyright issues were hornbook law, but they aren't. This copyright is going to have to be settled or tried. I hope it's settled. There's too many examples of JKR's willingness to share her world to count. She took a strong stance on some issues. Okay. Maybe you disagree with her - maybe I do, too, on some points - but I think she's earned the right to say what she thinks as forcefully as she likes. I'm going to go with my opinion anyway, I'd be glad to tell her I don't see something the same way she does (after I tell her what delight she gave me). No blood, no bruises, and I think JKR is as great as she ever was. Jim Ferer From va32h at comcast.net Thu Jan 3 02:52:35 2008 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 02:52:35 -0000 Subject: Which scene we hated more or loved WAS: Re: Why not Actually Re-Write? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180267 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > Hee, to each their own. LOVED that scene. Cried a lot when read it. > I totally expected the sacrifice from Harry - was hoping that it > will not needed or something will save him, but thought it to be > very likely. Harry doing it I mean. I cannot offer my old posts, but > I seem to remember I did. > > I mean, I thought sacrifice at the end will be very thematically > appropriate. > > And of course I did not see it as suicide or anything like that. I > saw it as conscious decision and not Dumbledore related either - > loved that Dumbledore was not among the people Harry called on. > > See, even now I am typing it, I am amazed at how well she does > shortcuts IMO. Not many words about how Harry was hurt by what he > heard Dumbledore wanting him to die, whether it was true or not. > Only - Dumbledore's betrayal was almost nothing AND Dumbledore is > not among his loved ones. I thought it was brilliant personally. > > IMO va32h: I liked and disliked that scene. Harry as a willing sacrifice? Fine, good, touching etc. His parents rooting him on? Turned my stomach. Maybe that just says something about me as a mom - I'd be hugging my babies and saying "let somebody else save the world!" Even Jesus asked "why Father why?" I think James, Sirius and Lily could have a tad less enthusiasm for sending Harry to his death, is all I'm saying. va32h From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 03:05:14 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:05:14 -0000 Subject: Which scene we hated more or loved / some copyright In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180268 > va32h: > > I liked and disliked that scene. Harry as a willing sacrifice? Fine, > good, touching etc. His parents rooting him on? Turned my stomach. > Maybe that just says something about me as a mom - I'd be hugging my > babies and saying "let somebody else save the world!" Even Jesus > asked "why Father why?" > > I think James, Sirius and Lily could have a tad less enthusiasm for > sending Harry to his death, is all I'm saying. Alla: I totally understand. I think I would do everything to keep my niece from doing something like this BUT I find it realistic still - in a sense that there are examples of the parents sending their kids to war. Your attitude is closer to me, but I respect theirs as well. And and as possible alternate scenario I also think that they know ( Lily and Marauders) that Harry would do it no matter what and that is why they sort of have no choice since they want to ease his last minutes not to make it harder on him by arguing with him. Speculating of course. Magpie: No, that's trademark you lose by not defending it. You can't lose copyright by not defending it. Though I agree that some authors are vocally against fanfic.: Alla: While you cannot literally lose copyright ( and talking only from what I remember in class, I may have forgotten even the basics), I think that if you do not defend it, it somehow gets harder when it is time to renew them. I can be wrong. Magpie: But if we're talking about the encyclopedia I support Rowling there. I don't think she's being unreasonable at all. Fanfic is in a grey area (with the understanding that people on either side think it's black or white!)--I don't think fanfic is copyright infringement myself, but Rowling is one of the authors who's supportive of it. Alla: Yes she is we agree :) Alla From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Jan 3 03:13:11 2008 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:13:11 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477C52C7.3050200@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180269 Jim Ferer wrote: > You're wrong about fanfiction, too. Many authors vigorously suppress > fanfiction on their works. Fanfiction can and has been seen as a > threat to an author's copyright; others plain don't want anybody else > playing in their world, and they say so. And Marion Zimmer Bradley, possibly the first major author to endorse fanfiction of her works, got sued by a fan for her efforts, forcing her to drop the book she had been working on for a couple of years. Bart From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 03:20:06 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:20:06 -0000 Subject: Damn Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180270 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Pippin" <1kf.lists at ...> wrote: > Where do you find evidence that PP was in Gryffindor House? I don't > think JKF mentions it. zanooda: I can't remember right now if it was mentioned in the earlier books (I haven't reread them in a long time :-), but in DH, in "The Prince's Tale" chapter, the Sorting ceremony is described, and "Harry watched Lupin, Pettigrew, and his father join Lily and Sirius at the Gryffindor table" (p.672 Am. ed.). Hope it helps! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 03:25:25 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:25:25 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180271 Magpie wrote: > Harry's not expressing any opinion in this sentence (though if you're referring to that one sentence I don't see why Harry's opinion wouldn't be that it looked like shopkeepers, Charlie, Slughorn and friends/family of non-Slytherin students were there, period). Carol responds: Right. Harry is not the narrator, and the third-person-limited narrator has been shown to be unreliable on certain occasions because Harry, whose viewpoint the narrator is usually presenting, is not always observant or correctly informed or unbiased. So what the narrator reports is what Harry sees or thinks he sees or Harry's reaction to or interpretation of what he sees (or hears or feels). And his interpretation, as I have shown in some half a dozen posts at least, is not always reliable, starting with Snape causing or appearing to cause the pain in Harry's scar. And in this instance, we have Harry's fleeting impression of what SEEMS to be happening as he rushes to find Voldemort. (Have you ever tried to identify faces in a rushing, pajama-clad crowd?) He spots Charlie and Slughorn, both well-known to him and neither of them inconspicuous, at the head of a crowd that SEEMS to be composed of Hogsmeade merchants and parents (whether students are included is unclear), but Harry doesn't have either the time to find out or the interest in doing so. The scene shifts quickly to the House-Elves, only one of whom is identified. Is Winky there? We don't know--unless we count JKR's off-page statement that she was there as canon. Her not being named certainly does not preclude her being there, just as Rosmerta's not being named doesn't mean she wasn't among the citizens of Hogsmeade. (Is she still under the Imperius Curse? We aren't told, so we have to decide for ourselves whether she was likely to be there or not.) Magpie: The narrator is telling us, using the usual limited pov, what's going on. And all I'm saying is that when I read the scene I read the way I always do, which is to read the words that are there. Carol: Except that you are conveniently overlooking certain words that conflict with your interpretation: "seemed" and "what looked like." Obviously, "seemed" and "what looked like" describe what Harry thought he saw, not what he really saw. Again, he didn't know most of the citizens of Hogsmeade or most of the parents of the Hogwarts students. He's guessing at the identity of the people in the crowd, and the narrator is reporting that guess, not as fact but as what SEEMED to Harry to be happening. Magpie: > Honestly, who reads like that? Who reads a sentence telling us > that "the next group to try out for the team were Hufflepuffs" and > thinks that's telling us anything but that the next group of people > were Hufflepuffs because Harry doesn't know everybody, or might be > mistaken, or is obviously wrong because this is the Gryffindor try- > out? > Carol: No one reads like that, but the sentences aren't comparable. The narrator doesn't say, "The next group *seemed* to be Hufflepuffs" or "The next group was composed of *what looked like* all the first years at Hogwarts." We just get straightforward information that they're Hufflepuffs or first-years (Harry suddenly being more aware of who's who at Hogwarts than he usually is). But even straightforward sentences sometimes turn out to be unreliable (see my "Harry knew" sentences in a previous post, or the infamous "Snape was going to Crucio him into insanity"). You have to consider context. How much is Harry likely to know or understand about what he's seeing? How likely is he to interpret it correctly? In this instance, his guess may be close, but it's probably not right on the money. (How could he possibly identify every person in that crowd? He couldn't.) > Magpie: > Harry already knows "Slytherin house played its part" regardless. > The book showed Slytherin playing its part without any mention of > actual students returning to fight here. The line makes sense > without those students--it has to, because the book never actually > mentioned the Slytherins returning and the line was still there. > Harry refers to one of those other things when he tells his son he > doesn't care what house he's Sorted into (wonder why his son is > worried?)--which I think any decent father would have said no matter > what and is of course followed by the assurance that if you don't > want to be in Slytherin you won't be there. No real change from Book > I that I can see. > Carol: Wait. You're allowed to interpret Phineas Nigellus's sentence on Slytherin's playing its part, but we're not allowed to interpret the not always reliable narrator's reporting of vague description of what Harry thinks he sees? Somehow, that doesn't seem like fair play to me. Magpie: > Which still does not change that sentence in canon to say that > Slughorn came back leading a charge of Slytherin students. Carol: Nor does it exclude the possibility that the crowd that *seemed* to be composed of parents and citizens that he didn't know from including students, especially the students whose parents were being led. And it remains more probable that the parents would be those of Slughorn's own students, who were allowed to go home and get them, than those of the students who remained at Hogwarts and had no opportunity to contact their parents. Have you ever noticed, BTW, that Harry's interpretations are often wrong (for example, in his interpretation of the overheard conversation between Draco and Snape), but the narrator never specifies that Harry was wrong. We just figure it out for ourselves in light of later information. Carol, wishing she had time to look up all the instances of "seemed" or "what looked like" or "appeared to be" in the books to see how many are accurate From angellima at xtra.co.nz Thu Jan 3 03:35:25 2008 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 16:35:25 +1300 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character Message-ID: <000801c84db9$adfb3870$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 180272 zgirnius: Harry never expressed an opinion as to whether any Slytherins returned with Sluggie or not. I think he had things he considered more important on his mind, not to mention that if the returnees were not Blaise, Theo, or Pansy, Harry might not even *know* them from residents of Hogsemade, bless his oblivious little heart. Someone could be vaguely familiar to him from having been in Potions and CoMC with him for five years, or from being a shop assistant at Hogsmeade the last time he visited. As Harry expressed no definitive opinions of the subject of whether Slytherins came back, it is not canon that he was "wrong", as you seem to suggest. Since he may not have been "wrong" there is no need to show he was. Harry is shown having no surprise at Phineas's "Slytherins played a part", and he is shown as stating that the House is an acceptable one for his son to be Sorted into at a later date. So either he thinks Slytherins came back, or he thinks the presence of school aged Slytherins in the battle is irrelevant to him in judging the House in light of the actions of Regulus, Sluggie, Andromeda, and Snape (among others whose actions Harry may have an opinion about). Either way, Our Hero has learned, like the Hat and the author suggested, that not all Slytherins are bad, and that the Houses must all play a part to defeat Voldemort. Angel: I absolutely agree with those who cannot fathom Phineas' comment without Slytherins returning to battle because if we review: Snape was a Gryffindor Regulus was a Gryffindor Bagodonuts was a Hufflepuff Honestly the more I read these comments the clearer HP becomes for me. I had at first thought Harry was a twit. Now I know it wasn't just Harry who couldn't remember the less than 10 Slytherins he had been doing Potions with for 6 years!!!! It was also the adults who never once thought of who Voldemort was, before the first WWW, nevermind the simple spells kids are being taught at Hogwart during Harry's time. Lucky for all, there was Dumbledore, noble puppeteer and his obedient marionette, both of whom were brave and thus true Gryffindors. zgirnius: Either way, Our Hero has learned, like the Hat and the author suggested, that not all Slytherins are bad, and that the Houses must all play a part to defeat Voldemort. Angel: Silly me, I thought Harry learnt that if you're good and you're in Slytherin then Hogwarts sorted too soon. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 03:58:58 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:58:58 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: <000801c84db9$adfb3870$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180273 > zgirnius: > Either way, Our Hero has learned, like the Hat and the author > suggested, that not all Slytherins are bad, and that the Houses must > all play a part to defeat Voldemort. > > Angel: > Silly me, I thought Harry learnt that if you're good and you're in Slytherin then Hogwarts sorted too soon. Alla: The only thing this comment showed to me was that sometimes or more than sometimes Dumbledore can be an *sshole. I never took it as anything more deep than that - that author agrees with this comment or something like that. My opinion of course. Alla. From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net Thu Jan 3 04:18:21 2008 From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 04:18:21 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180274 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > So, what if we speculatively rewrite the books, in fact, why > don't we all do it right now? Pippin Fowler: Not to play copyright cop, but the proposal could be against the U.S. copyright law. from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html The Copyright Act "generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: "To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords; "To prepare derivative works based upon the work...." which is why fan fiction using another author's characters may also be a violation. 'Fair Use' puts this in the 'grey magic' category. Pippin Fowler From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net Thu Jan 3 04:32:23 2008 From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 04:32:23 -0000 Subject: Editorial input, was: Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180275 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Gretchen Ting" <2syf010 at ...> wrote: > Now, would JKR have listened? That is another issue. I personally > believe JKR made a mistake trying to cram everything she did into > DH. Why the rush? To keep to some proclamation she made that > there would be only 7 books? I hope not. Pippin Fowler: I suppose we have 7 books because students attend Hogwarts for 7 years. Yet events could have caused Hogwarts to close for a year, allowing at least one more book. No telling how much external pressure was heaped upon our author during the writing of the later books, but I'd guess it was crushing at times. JKR mentions on her website that the mistake in the order of the Priori Incantatem of Voldemort's wand was due to a rushing editor's mistake that JKR didn't correct. PF From va32h at comcast.net Thu Jan 3 04:41:18 2008 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 04:41:18 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180276 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Pippin" <1kf.lists at ...> wrote: > Pippin Fowler: > Not to play copyright cop, but the proposal could be against the U.S. > copyright law. > > from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html > > The Copyright Act "generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive > right to do and to authorize others to do the following: > > "To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords; > > "To prepare derivative works based upon the work...." > > which is why fan fiction using another author's characters may also be > a violation. 'Fair Use' puts this in the 'grey magic' category. va32h: I think random chit chat on a yahoo group would fall well under the Fair Use category. No one is suggesting actually attempting to publish an alternate version (for profit or not). In fact, Steve specifically proposed that we talk about general ideas, and not supply actual dialog, narration, etc. Talking about "how you would write DH" is not one whit different than anything else this list has discussed since its inception. And since there are about a million or so HP fanfics plastered all over the internet I think it's safe to say that shutting down fanfic is not a top priority for JKR at the moment. I don't think any of us need to fear a lawsuit. va32h From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net Thu Jan 3 05:27:39 2008 From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:27:39 -0000 Subject: Damn Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180277 Pippin Fowler: > > > Where do you find evidence that PP was in Gryffindor House? I don't > > think JKF mentions it. > > zanooda: > > I can't remember right now if it was mentioned in the earlier books (I > haven't reread them in a long time :-), but in DH, in "The Prince's > Tale" chapter, the Sorting ceremony is described, and "Harry watched > Lupin, Pettigrew, and his father join Lily and Sirius at the Gryffindor > table" (p.672 Am. ed.). Hope it helps! Pippin Fowler: Thank you, that helps. It appears that the main reason that PP was sorted into Gryffindor is so that it looks plausible that he would be chosen as Secret Keeper for James and Lily. Yet it would have taken a fair amount of bravery and daring to keep up with the Marauders' exploits, and Pettigrew went through a lot to bring Voldy back, in spite of Voldemort's assessment that Pettigrew was a coward. However, the Sorting Hat's mention of 'chivalry' connected with the Gryffindor House certainly does not fit Pettigrew--but neither does it fit young James, come to think of it. I guess dividing pre-teens into just 4 houses is not an exact science. At least astrology has 12 houses. LOL From greatraven at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 05:37:47 2008 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:37:47 -0000 Subject: Which scene we hated more or loved WAS: Re: Why not Actually Re-Write? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180278 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > > va32h: > > I liked and disliked that scene. Harry as a willing sacrifice? Fine, > good, touching etc. His parents rooting him on? Turned my stomach. > Maybe that just says something about me as a mom - I'd be hugging my > babies and saying "let somebody else save the world!" Even Jesus > asked "why Father why?" > > I think James, Sirius and Lily could have a tad less enthusiasm for > sending Harry to his death, is all I'm saying. > > va32h Sue here: I agree totally! I'm guessing, though, that they weren't actually there, they were just pulled up out of Harry's mind, saying the things he needed them to say, so that he could go ahead with what he had to do. Like you, I think if they had actually been there, they would have begged him not to do it. I think, also, that it's a tribute to that scene in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, where Aslan walks to the White Witch's camp, accompanied by Susan and Lucy, and all he wants is not to be alone. From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net Thu Jan 3 05:58:45 2008 From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:58:45 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180279 > va32h: > > I think random chit chat on a yahoo group would fall well under the > Fair Use category. No one is suggesting actually attempting to > publish an alternate version (for profit or not). In fact, Steve > specifically proposed that we talk about general ideas, and not supply > actual dialog, narration, etc. Pippin Fowler: I am happy Steve amended his original proposal to 'concept phase' rather than actual rewriting. Publishing and profit have nothing to do with whether something is copyright infringement. > I don't think any of us need to fear a lawsuit. As the idea has been amended, I agree. However, Yahoo has been quite skittish about copyright infringement, when a copyright holder complains; or so it was when a knitting yahoo group was shut down by a knitting designer's complaint some years ago. JKR seems unlikely to complain about fan fiction or the like here, but who knows? If I were her, and I were here, reading some of the comments over the past couple of months, I probably wouldn't feel a great deal of warmth and caring for this group, with a few exceptions. So let the rewrite summaries flow. Other than my ongoing desire to have Neville and Luna married and present during the epilogue, I can't think of anything at the moment. No, wait, let's have Seamus and Dean Finnigan-Thomas together in the epilogue also, putting their adopted witch onto the Hogwarts Express. Pippin Fowler From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 07:57:38 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:57:38 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180280 --- "Pippin" <1kf.lists at ...> wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > So, what if we speculatively rewrite the books, in fact, > > why don't we all do it right now? > > Pippin Fowler: > Not to play copyright cop, but the proposal could be against > the U.S. copyright law. > > ... > > Pippin Fowler > bboyminn: Did you actually read what I wrote? The examples I gave, and are you really trying to tell me those examples qualify as copyright infringement? I don't think so. They are fair and reasonable discussion and literary criticism. I'm not saying we should re-write the entire series. I am saying as a method of discussing the books and as a change of pace, we could indicate how we think certain scene could have alternately gone. I firmly say, that in this context, Copyright doesn't come into play. Steve/bboyminn From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Thu Jan 3 11:42:53 2008 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:42:53 -0000 Subject: Wizarding history (WAS Re: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180281 > Katie wrote: > > In the spirit of new threads, however, a question I have always > had: How do you guys think the very first wizards realized they > were different and how do you think the wizarding community was > formed? I mean, are we talking prehistoric, here? Or do we think > this is a more recent evolutionary change? Ann: Well, given how important Egyptian magic seems to be, I'd say the magical mutation, if there was such a thing, happened in recent prehistory at the earliest. But if it did happen, either it must have been pretty early for it to have spread all across the globe (when all homo sapiens lived in a small enough part of Africa for the gene to spread to everyone), or it happened multiple times. But a mutation event can't be taken for granted, because magic appears to exist independently of wizards - dragons, for instance, can't have evolved without magic, which may have been thrust upon 'em than happening by chance. Maybe the first wizards gained magic powers by living near magical creatures, which rearranged their DNA to produce the magic gene. I wonder if the Muggle government has a register of people with a common, mysterious, genetic anomaly, and doesn't realise they have a list of Squibs? A couple of related points. Firstly, I've said before that I think the establishment of Hogwarts was the beginning of British wizarding unification, providing a centre for the population. But a diffuse population can't have a central location without very fast travel. This explains with Apparition, not useful enough to be taught in classes, is taught to almost every young wizard: it's seen as a necessity for functioning in wizarding culture. (This makes it a parallel to driving in US culture, I think, explaining why the Twins Apparate between storeys in OotP.) If someone around the time of the Founders developed the spell, that would explain why Hogwarts was begun. Secondly, the Patronus Charm is difficult - it's not taught at OWL level, so most wizards may not be able to cast it. But all Aurors can. It's not hard to see the Aurors beginning as, or significantly adding to their power, with this spell, so much so that what began as a private operation, somewhere from quasi-chivalrous order to protection racket, had to be absorbed by the Ministry or proto-Ministry because it was just too powerful, and thereby adding to its own power so much that it became the dominant wizarding organisation in Britain, ousting the Wizengamot. If anyone else has theories about the Ministry's development, they might find this interesting - anyone? Ann From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 12:02:16 2008 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:02:16 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: <477C52C7.3050200@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180282 Jim Ferer (me): "You're wrong about fanfiction, too. Many authors vigorously suppress fanfiction on their works. Fanfiction can and has been seen as a threat to an author's copyright; others plain don't want anybody else playing in their world, and they say so." Bart: "And Marion Zimmer Bradley, possibly the first major author to endorse fanfiction of her works, got sued by a fan for her efforts, forcing her to drop the book she had been working on for a couple of years." I'd forgotten about that one. How easy is it for a fan to say that this or that idea had been stolen from them? In HP, every conceivable plot point has been done in fic, so JKR would have had to have Harry marry McGonagall, for example, not to step on someone's toes. Actually, there probably is a Harry/Minerva fic out there somewhere. Some authors will not ever read fanfic even if they do allow it for just that reason, so they can testify that they never read the stuff. I hope that the state of the law has gotten to the point that an author kindly disposed to fic needn't fear for it. IMO, JKR could have taken one of my pathetic little fics and dropped it verbatim into one of the books and I wouldn't have any recourse. (I would have been thrilled). Jim Ferer From aceworker at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 12:48:01 2008 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 04:48:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Damn Sorting Hat/Pettigrew Message-ID: <227329.95581.qm@web30207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180283 <> I think JKR might have been trying to make a point with PP that ultimately bravery is not a quality that belongs just to the righteous.I've always seen many parallel qualities between Pettigrew and Neville and even Colin. Many times, 'cowardice' is mistaken for lack of self-confidence and boldness for bravery. All kinds along the continimun are shown by JKR within Gryffidor house, Dean being probably the best example of a character sort of in the middle of the boldness scale, between Neville and Harry. Gryffindor like all the houses also illustrates a leadership style. Gyffs take action, Huffs reach a consensus, Ravenclaw's brainstorm and Slytherins manipulate the circumstances. I've always sort of thought throughout the books that Pettigrew at some point just made a mistaken ideological and personal decision that Voldemort was right. In other words Voldemort basically seduced Pettigew into his cult. As we see in hindsight, DD the man of light was not a rose without thorns. This is the best part about JKR, it's amazing how she creates such complicated characters with such a few broad strokes. ~ DA Jones (Sandy) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Jan 3 12:50:15 2008 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 06:50:15 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Editorial input, was: Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40801030450w62f8b564o72123f19af84b2c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180284 > > Pippin Fowler: > I suppose we have 7 books because students attend Hogwarts for 7 years. > Yet events could have caused Hogwarts to close for a year, allowing at > least one more book. No telling how much external pressure was heaped > upon our author during the writing of the later books, but I'd guess it > was crushing at times. JKR mentions on her website that the mistake in > the order of the Priori Incantatem of Voldemort's wand was due to a > rushing editor's mistake that JKR didn't correct. montims: Just to put the record straight, as I've seen this mentioned a few times now - this only happened in the American first edition of the book, not the UK version. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 3 12:52:58 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:52:58 -0000 Subject: Has Snape's Worst Memory been explained by JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180285 "kvapost" wrote: > > Does anyone know whether JKR explained why this particular memory was > Snape's worst? Before DH we had two versions: 1.being insulted in > front of Lily; and 2.calling Lily a mudblood. > Has JKR commented on that one at all? > ...If it was worst because of Lily, too bad for non-reading > movie-goers, as Lily wasn't even in the movie. Potioncat: The "why" has been answered, but the question brought up fond memories of many, many threads on this topic. We discussed and bebated whether it "was" his worst memory (of a DE?, come on!) why he had pulled it out, how it connected to the other 2 memories (three strands, three memories----I doubt it) Whether he left it out on purpose.....on and on. Did that event cause him to follow Lupin, or allow Black to trick him into the Prank? Someone-- I don't know who-- correctly suggested the worst part of that memory was not the Marauders, but Snape's own treatment of Lily. I don't know if LOLLIPOPS was already a T-Bay ship yet. Does anyone else know? It is this sort of writing, plotting, whatever one calls it, that made the HP series so much fun. Potioncat, who saw quite enough of Snape's DE experiences in DH, and would not want to see any of his other DE related memories. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 14:04:55 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:04:55 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180286 > >>Carol responds: > Right. Harry is not the narrator, and the third-person-limited > narrator has been shown to be unreliable on certain occasions > because Harry, whose viewpoint the narrator is usually presenting, > is not always observant or correctly informed or unbiased. So what > the narrator reports is what Harry sees or thinks he sees or Harry's > reaction to or interpretation of what he sees (or hears or feels). > And his interpretation, as I have shown in some half a dozen posts > at least, is not always reliable, starting with Snape causing or > appearing to cause the pain in Harry's scar. Betsy Hp: Yes, JKR has used Harry's limited view point to set up a mystery before. We know that, because she's also *solved* those mysteries. So, could you please point out to me the scene in which this particular mystery is solved? You know, the big reveal where Harry realizes that his fellow Slytherin class-mates behaved in a manner he'd long thought impossible and risked their lives to defend the school? That big bang moment similar to the big bang moments where Fake-Moody or Quirrel are revealed as the actual villains and Snape is revealed as innocent? > >>Carol: > > (Have you ever tried to identify faces in a rushing, pajama-clad > crowd?) > Betsy Hp: Have you ever identified a hypnosis victim in a pitched battle in the middle of the night? I'm afraid JKR doesn't cling close to reality when she enters the realm of battle. But really this, in a nutshell, illustrates why there aren't many good, meaty, positive discussions on this list about these books, IMO. We can't even agree on a basic premise like: was Slytherin House redeemed. To my mind the obvious answer is no: they are and were just as bad as Harry feared. Sure there were a few members who managed to crawl above their fellows (3, I believe). But on the whole, Slytherin is the bad guy house, home of bigots and cowards. Others, just as obviously, disagree. IMO, it's this confusion (among other things) that will keep the series from ever achieving "epic" status. In general, if you end a book saying "wait... what?" the author's fallen down on her job. At least, IMO. ;) Betsy Hp From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Jan 3 14:31:56 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 07:31:56 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. References: Message-ID: <004a01c84e15$652eba20$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180287 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: >> So, what if we speculatively rewrite the books, in fact, why >> don't we all do it right now? > > va32h: > > Well I've mentioned before that I rewrote the whole darn thing, which > was really a very fun and therapeutic process. > > One of my first changes was letting Hedwig live; Harry sets her free > with the admonish to take care of herself and come looking for him > again when it's safe. I just found it hard to believe that Harry - > who had been cruelly confined so much of his life - would keep Hedwig > penned up in a cage once he was free of the Dursleys. Yeah, I'd keep Hedwig alive too, and have Harry just putting her in the cage because they were about to travel, or showing him missing Hedwig because he had sent her ahead days earlier. I'd rewrite it that at least Tonks lives, and goes on to raise her son herself instead of leaving Teddy an orphan. I'd rewrite it so that Fred lived and the twins would go on to help in the rebuilding of the WW through the return of laughter, and have them generously fund something, so that Harry's money would come full circle. I'd rewrite it so that Snape went through more of a redemptive process with Harry, so that there was more of an emotional connection/turn around there. I know some disagree with me on this, but I think the way it's written now, Harry naming his child after Snape is a mistake- I'd fix it so it was clear to all, even Snape-haters, why Harry had such a change of heart. I think I'd have Snape die turning on Voldemort- telling him what a fool he's been and telling Voldemort off, and then dying for it, rather than as a simple stand there and just be bitten like some weak puppet with no backbone of his own. I'd actually have Snape go out in a blaze of glory. The battle would be different. I would actually have a few of the Slytherins turn on their classmates to defend Hogwarts, rather than have them all blindly follow Voldemort by trying to turn over Harry. Even as kids, I can't see them all as young-DeathEaters in the making, none of them able to see for themselves the destruction and hardship that Voldemort was causing to everyone. (It reminds me of Hitler- in his early days, young people joined his cause because they believed it was noble; after the war started and it was clear what Hitler's real agendas were, some of the enlightened fought hard against being dragged in to fight for Hitler.) So, I'd introduce some Slytherins that you once thought you'd never be on the same side with, and then have them fighting side by side with the other houses, proving that even Slytherins can do noble deeds, and proving that Sorting Hat to be correct, that they must all work together. I'd keep the RoR, Dolby and Creature the same. I'd have Luna's father be talking so that you could see his fear for his daughter, so that it was clear that he hated what he was doing, but that Luna was his life and he couldn't bear to lose her. (The scene would have him in tears, shaking and begging them for forgiveness to understand that he felt he didn't have a choice, he was a victim, too, in this situation.) I'd have to think about the situation of Molly killing Bellatrix- I actually liked that scene, but can't see her swearing. I know Ron must have gotten it from somewhere, but I didn't think it was Molly, as that would make her such a hypocrite. And someone mentioned PTSD- I would have changed things so that both Harry and Cho would have gotten help when Cedric died. I can't believe the WW wouldn't have any sort of thing as counseling. Only I might have the visiting counselor for Harry be a bit of dud, so that it's clear that Harry finds his own way through the situation. Cho, on the other hand, would still struggle through the process so much longer than Harry. Then Hermione's little speech to Harry about it would have included not only Cho's grief, but some measure of wisdom that the counseling Cho got was telling her to try and reach out. I think I would have also included later a brief talk of Harry to Cho retelling of what happened to Cedric, so that it became a healing moment for both of them, and then have them remain distant friends but no longer the really awkward split the way Rowling wrote it. The epilogue would have then included a visit by Uncle Dudley, or mention of him, such as note wishing them well on their first day of school. I'd have it clear Dudley still keeps in touch with Harry. In the crowd at the station a smile and a nod to the Slytherin who had helped to defend the school. Then Harry's little talk to his son wouldn't have been such a stretcher as far as believability that Harry really didn't mind if his child became a Slytherin, because them we would all know that you can be a Slytherin and on the side for good. It also would have been interesting if that child had shared in Harry's gift of parceltongue, so that placement in Slytherin would have been fully appropriate. (Rather than Rowling's musings in interviews that she thought that after the whole thing was over the Harry would lose that gift??? Which doesn't make sense to me at all....) Luna and Neville would be mentioned as a couple, or at least dating later in life, after a period of Luna's searching the wilds for creatures. I could see Luna-Neville camping trips- he looking for magical fauna and she looking for magical creatures. The start of a new school year would have brought them both back to Hogwarts to teach classes. (Yes, both of them teachers.) I'd cut down on the camping scenes in DH. I'd make them more realistic- in a past post I had mentioned that it would have been more appropriate to have Hermione consulting a book on how to skin a rabbit and have Ron complaining that she had missed some hairs or something, and have part of his whining be because he missed all of his creature comforts of home that his mom did for him. When he came back, I'd have him grow up a bit more radically, such as willing taking on chores that he previously bawked at doing. I'd have them actually talk to the fellow run-aways at the creek's edge, but a brief chat to say that they were all in this together, a brief exchange of information that would have given the trio a clue to go further. I'm sure I will come up with a ton of others. I might even be tempted to reread DH, something I had no desire to do before this little exercise, because I hated it so much. Shelley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Jan 3 15:35:56 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 08:35:56 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts References: Message-ID: <008f01c84e1e$560c2100$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180288 > Jim Ferer: > The notion that JKR is stifling discussion of her work is grossly > overstated. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said that she is stifling discussion. My line of thought was merely about control, and a lawsuit clearly exercises that control and show of power. Many smaller authors don't have the capital (money) to defend their works, but Rowling does and she had exercised that show of force through not only this lawsuit, but others when her works were released early in bookstores and in online media word-for-word. > Jim Ferer: > The Lexicon is far more doubtful. You speak of it as if the copyright > issues were hornbook law, but they aren't. This copyright is going to > have to be settled or tried. I hope it's settled. I am well aware that copyright issues are settled in court, and that court precedence becomes the law. I am under no delusion that they are hornbook law, as you called it. Heck, I wrote papers on in college, showing how companies use lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits as a way to bully around their competition. You don't have to physically be a monopoly to exercise monopoly powers if you have the power of well placed lawsuits to intimidate. Lawsuits are a way to exercise power over a smaller opponent. It's very clear that to defend a copyright, you must sue, you must go after the person you think is infringing upon it. That is an exercise in power and control, plain and simple. If you don't have a means of power and control, you can't exercise your rights, now can you? It's not a matter of right or wrong, of criticizing Rowling for doing it or not doing it; again, I was merely talking about this lawsuit as a solid evidence that Rowling is maintaining and asserting control over future Harry Potter material. She didn't sue any other author who wrote about her works before this final book, but she's taken a different direction and suing now. That backs up my original assertion that she seems to have a harder time now letting go of the Harry Potter world now that this series is done. I said it feels like she's already writing another book, plotting it in her mind, and she doesn't want another person's book to trump hers, or be published before she even gets to put her pen to the page. Steve's lexicon wouldn't threaten Rowling's lexicon. They'd simply be two separate analysises on the same material- one from an outside prospective, and Rowling's with all the extra goodies that only an author herself could add in. They wouldn't even look the same! On the legal side, though, most of Steve's lexicon has already been published on the internet, and thus Rowling's lawyers would have to assert (because they haven't previously defended that the lexicon(s) on the internet violated their copyright) that a lexicon in print would be different from having one on the internet. I don't think they have a legal leg to stand on, since the authors and publishers of the ones on the net can show even where she referred to them on her web page (showing previous approval even), and that the existence of lexicons so far have not hurt any of her book sales to date. (You have to prove monetary loss in the lawsuit.) Thus, I think if Steve can muster the strength to fight against this monopoly-giant Rowling, they will clearly win in court. But, they have to be willing to step up to this giant to fight the intimidation she's now demonstrating. Clearly, a lawsuit is a hostile move against this fan of hers, one that I feel shows disrespect toward all her fans. I'm going to pull out a line from a previous post from someone else to help illustrate what I feel Rowling is doing now: Carol responds: " I just wish she would realize that her characters and the WW are no longer within her control. She's like a person who gives a Christmas present and then claims it as her own because she bought or made it. Wrong. The books belong to the readers, to interpret as they will (preferably in accordance with what's on the page)." That's how I feel. We own Dumbledore as we read him through 7 books. He became ours in our heads. But I feel like she still wants to write about him, to finish creating him as a character, as if she was planning another book when she intends to show a gay Dumbledore. But, this is Rowling- even as she was writing the series, she kept changing her mind. She mislead fans when she said there would be a character who does magic later in life, because she didn't end up writing the books that way. She was free to correct us when she had another book in line, for she knew what was coming up. But, now that the last book is done, I don't feel she has that same right to tell us how to interpret the books so far. She didn't write Dumbledore as gay, and to tell people that is now is just her mind plotting another book for the future where she intends to show it to us, or show how that revelation is relevant to the story. To me, any interview that she gives now will only be relevant for a future book. I think she's misleading us again- she isn't done. There will be another book. She just hasn't planned it all out yet, and so any revelation is kind of like that line about a character who does magic later in life- it may change, or she may keep it. She's still free to make up her mind, but in the process, I think she's unfairly toying with her fans. Much better to actually write the book than to write in out in musings in interviews where she can make up anything on the spot and have it not turn out to be true once she actually sits down to flesh out the story. That's why I think any interview is not canon. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 16:24:28 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:24:28 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back and some other staff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180289 Lealess wrote: > > An example of a deduction: When Harry says to Dumbledore that he never killed anyone if he didn't have to (paraphrasing), that is similar to a loaded question, e.g., "When did you stop beating your wife?" Unless Dumbledore answers, "I never killed anyone," we are left with the presumption, Harry's presumption, that he did, in fact, kill someone. That Dumbledore killed someone is a perfectly valid deduction within the text, I think. > > Alla responded: > > Valid? Sure it is, but I do not call it a valid deduction within the text, I call it valid text based speculation, because to me it is based on vague, completely unsupported by canon assumption that Harry in turn has ANY reason to make this assumption. > > For that reason this assumption is really to me not that different from assuming that Slytherins came back, some of them I mean. Oh and again **I** did not make that assumption, but I totally thought it was the valid one. Carol responds: FWIW, I think Harry's reference to DD's never killing if he could avoid it (and DD's implicitly agreeing, perhaps with Ariana in mind), results from JKR's own memory lapse. She remembers putting the words "never killed if he could help it" in the mouth of some character (Sirius Black in GoF, as it happens), but forgets that the words referred to Mad-Eye Moody rather than Dumbledore. I can't prove my speculation, of course, speculations being by their very nature unproveable, but she's made so many similar lapses, both in canon and in interviews, that I think it's at least plausible. Meanwhile, we as readers are free to view the words as a lapse, apply them to Ariana, or speculate that DD did indeed kill somebody (despite killing neither Voldemort nor Grindelwald when he had the opportunity, or Draco, for that matter) and despite being able, at least before he injured his hand, to escape from virtually any predicament using either Fawkes or his own unbeatable wand. Just how Harry, all of whose encounters with Dumbledore are on page word for word, would have learned about that supposed killing of someone because he had to is unclear, and just who would have needed to be killed by the super-powerful Dumbledore is unclear. He doesn't kill Barty Crouch Jr. and disapproves when Barty is soul-sucked. He doesn't kill young Snape, who approaches him as a known Death Eater. We never hear of DD personally battling DEs during VW1, either. That seems to have been the job of Aurors like Mad-Eye and the Longbottoms, and the younger Order members like the Prewitts and McKinnons (who perhaps only defended themselves when they were attacked). There's not a single reference in canon to DD battling a Death Eater, only to his hexing the Auror Dawlish and dueling LV and GG. Carol, not commenting further on what Harry glimpsed and hurriedly interpreted as reported by the limited-omniscient narrator in the Battle of Hogwarts except to note that he's probably in a state of exhaustion if not shock, having just witnessed several deaths close at hand and then "died" himself From muellem at bc.edu Thu Jan 3 17:16:45 2008 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:16:45 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: <008f01c84e1e$560c2100$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180290 >k12listmomma at ...> wrote: > > Carol responds: > " I just wish she would realize that her characters and the WW are no longer > within her control. She's like a person who gives a Christmas present and > then claims it as her own because she bought or made it. Wrong. The books > belong to the readers, to interpret as they will (preferably in accordance > with what's on the page)." > >k12listmomma: > That's how I feel. We own Dumbledore as we read him through 7 books. He > became ours in our heads. But I feel like she still wants to write about > him, to finish creating him as a character, as if she was planning another > book when she intends to show a gay Dumbledore. colebiancardi: I am sorry, but JKR OWNS Dumbledore. Others may feel that DD is "theirs" but that is, as you stated, in your head. And JKR has every right to finish creating her characters as she sees fit. Even if I disagree with it. I don't understand this "we own the characters because we love the books" stuff. We've been blessed, for good and for bad, with these characters because of the writer, not because of us. If JKR wants to come out and state that Lupin was really ESE, I may not agree with that, but that is her right. She can shape HER characters, which she gave birth to and formed, not us, any old way she wishes to. Trust me, JKR has upset me with some of her statements, but I would never go as far as stating her characters are MINE. colebiancardi From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 3 17:48:16 2008 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:48:16 -0000 Subject: Respect (was: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180291 "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > the apparent harshness of a number of your > responses jars against the camaraderie > which many of us have shared over recent > years on this group. You know Geoff I've got to say your words do not move me, not one bit, and I will tell you why. If there is anyone this group should have shown camaraderie toward it is JKR, but she received none, instead for the last few months this group has treated her with great disrespect, a prominent member of this group came right out and said "I have lost all respect for her". And who criticized her for saying something so hateful against the person who has given us such joy for so many years? Just me, nobody else, just me. Lets call a spade a spade, this group has treated JKR like dirt for the last several months, and you should all be ashamed of yourself, especially the moderators who did nothing while the group degenerated to this point. And who would be the second most insulted person this group has aimed their sights on? Well that would be me. And my crime? Being just about the only one willing to publicly defend JKR. I said before I think this demonstrates an appalling smallness of spirit, and I stand by that statement. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 18:19:58 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:19:58 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180292 Magpie wrote: > More interesting quite possibly--I admit I sort of added it as I was reading! But I don't think it makes more sense. It doesn't fill any holes since the book provided alternate motivation. Carol responds: Here I agree with you. Canon shows us an intellectual infatuation shared between two brilliant boys, the kind of thing that has happened many times in real life at schools like Eton (I'm thinking of Percy Bysshe Shelley and his friend Thomas Jefferson Hogg, but I'm sure other people can think of other examples). The text shows the young Grindelwald as charming and merry as well as brilliant and DD as refusing to see the darkness beneath that pleasing exterior, but we never see their friendship beyond a photo of two laughing boys and one letter about the greater good, signed not "love, Albus," but "Albus Dumbledore, with the "A" being the sign of the Deathly Hallows. Fans of slash fanfic, some of whom saw Lupin and Black as lovers, may have read in a romantic relationship, but I certainly didn't. I saw, and still see, a passionate intellectual friendship in which Albus saw his own brilliance and his own ideas reflected in someone else who turned out to be condiderably less scrupulous than Albus, to put it mildly. I don't at all mind JKR's saying that she always imagined him as gay; it's her thinking that what she imagined but didn't put on paper is the ony valid interpretation that I find disturbing. > Magpie: > The moment just doesn't read as ambiguous to me in any way. Carol: Not *to you*, but it does read as ambiguous to others. ("Seemed" is a clue that what Harry thinks he sees isn't necessarily accurate. Remember "They didn't see what they thought they saw," Sirius Black's description of his "murdering" the Muggles and Pettigrew? Remember the Hufflepuffs thinking they saw Harry egging the conjured snake on to Justin? Remember Harry seeing Snape "murder" Dumbledore and DD pleading for his life? One of the themes of the books is that what appears to be true, including what Harry perceives to be true, isn't necessarily true. Harry watches "the man he hated" die, not even sure what he's feeling, and comes away from the Pensieve scene no longer hating Snape--without ever having undergone a logical thought process to understand how he reached the point where he could publicly vindicate him. We don't see his thought processes; all we can do is judge from his changed view not only of Snape but of Slytherin House inself. And, again, Phineas Nigellus *appears* to be--my reading--speaking of Slytherin House as a whole playing its part, not only the current and past HoHs, one of them dead, or the long-dead Regulus, whose part not even Phineas Nigellus understands, but the Slytherin students. That's how it reads to me. It makes no sense, again, to me, any other way.) Magpie: > The sentence doesn't make it any more ambiguous that Slughorn's brought back the Slytherins than it's ambiguous as to whether or not Slughorn hasn't brought back an army of Inferi, Sirius Black or the Captain and Tenille. She doesn't need to say "but no Slytherins" since they wouldn't naturally be included in the group anyway. There's an infinite amount of things that the author doesn't tell us didn't happen--the books made up of things we hear did happen. Things like Harry's not knowing Theo Nott's name back in fifth year or Slytherin's acting less than evilly anywhere else are imo irrelevent. Carol: Except that the Captain and Tenille are not characters in the book and Slughorn neither could nor would have brought back an army of Inferi. Some interpretations are possible and valid; other "interpretations" would not even be considered. We might as well say that Voldemort and Harry were twins separated at birth, born on Tatuini (sp) Slughorn did *canonically* accompany his own students to the Hog's Head (as well as younger students form other Houses). He obviously *did not* accompany the students who remained at Hogwarts, and Harry's *interpretation* that the adults he sees are the parents of kids who, not having cell phones, had no way of contacting their parents (they weren't allowed to send owls) makes no sense. (For that matter, his interpreting "Neither can live while the other survives" as "One of us has to kill the other" makes no sense, either, at least to me.) > Magpie: > My vote goes to that he knows because this is just the narrator telling us what's going on in the battle and we're not supposed to be caring about stuff like how Harry has recognized these people (though it certainly seems to shoot down the idea that he couldn't recognize people he knows even better). Carol: Oops. JKR is not using an omniscient narrator here or even a third-person dramatic narrator who reports the events objectively from the outside without entering the minds of the characters, as in "Spinner's End." She's using her usual third-person-limited narrator *interpreting* what Harry sees, *limited* both by what Harry sees (and hears) and by Harry's knowledge, which, for the umpteenth time, does *not* include the identity of the people who *look like* the entire population of Hogsmeade and the parents of "all the students who remained [at Hogwarts] to fight," the last *interpretation* being extremely unlikely if not impossible, not only because those kids had no way to contact their parents, nor did Slughorn, who would only have known the parents of his own students and been able to contact him because those kids were with him, but because some of the parents of students who remained to fight (Seamus's father, for example) were Muggles. (Did his mother come from Ireland to fight? I rather doubt it.) At any rate, let's look again at the canon that we're interpreting differently, not to prove that you're wrong and I'm right but to show that both interpretations (and that's all they are) are valid. The scene is not the narrator telling the reader what's happening. It's the narrator, as usual, reporting Harry's interpretation of what he sees. "And now there were more, even more, people storming up the front steps, and *Harry saw* Charlie Weasley overtaking Horace Slughorn, who was still wearing his emerald pajamas. They *seemed* to have returned ath the head of *whatr looked like* the families and friends of every student who had remained to fight, along with the shopkeepers and homeowners of Hogsmeade. The centaurs, Bane, Ronan, and Magorian burst into the hall with a great clatter of hooves, as behind Harry the door that led to the kitchens is blasted off its hinges" (DH Am. ed.734). the next second, the House-Elves burst in, and Harry recognizes only Kreacher (the rest being just nameless generic House-Elves to hi--we don't know whether Winky is among them and he doesn't stop to look for her). And then we get a chaotic scene of House-Elves hacking and stabbing at the ankles and shins of DEs, which takes Harry's attention away from the new human arrivals. Harry speeds between duellers, paying no attention to their identities, into the Great Hall, where Voldemort is "in the center of the battle, striking and smiting all within reach" (735). Finally, Harry, unable to get a clear shot, stops to watch the action, and we get names of people important to him or easily recognizable to him, including the more important DEs or DE allies: Dolohov, Yaxley, Macnair, Rookwood, Greyback, Thicknesse, and the fleeing Malfoys, along with Harry's friends and former teachers: George, Lee, Flitwick, Hagrid, Ron, Neville, Aberforth, Arthur, Percy, McGonagall, Slughorn and Kingsley. A moment later, Harry sees Hermione, Ginny, and Luna fighting Bellatrix. It's not that no one else is fighting, it's that these people are at the center of the battle and Harry knows them, so that's where his atttention is focused. He's not looking at or thinking about the anonymous crowd that followed Slughorn and Charlie into the Great Hall, along with three Centaurs, with a horde of House-Elves entering from the opposite direction. In any case, the DEs are greatly outnumbered, and by the time Bellatrix is mentioned, only she and Voldemort are left. Then Molly Weasley takes on Bellatrix and the narrator says that they're both fighting to kill, though how either the narrator or Harry knows that when neither has yet cast a Killing Curse is beyond me. All the others--students, teachers, shopkeepers, even, no doubt, Centaurs and House-Elves, are lining the walls and watching. Then, with all the DEs either Stunned, dead, or otherwise out of the battle, Harry focuses on Voldemort. The narrator names only the people in whom Harry has a specific interest, including DEs that he fought at the MoM (Macnair, Dolohov, Rookwood, the unarmed and humiliated Lucius Malfoy) or saw on the Astronomy Tower the night that DD died (Yaxley, the semi-DE Greyback) and the Imperiused Minister for Magic, Thicknesse, now treated as a bad guy. It just occurred to me that Mundungus either didn't show up with the Order members or simply isn't named. I think he would have been mentioned if he were there, though, since Harry would have been surprised to see him. As for the people who showed up with Slughorn, it looks as if their importance was primarily their sheer numbers. They don't seem to have had much chance to fight the greatly outnumbered DEs. The few of-age Slytherins who *may* have been included (at most, Theo Nott. Blaise Zabini, four seventh-year girls (I'm sure Pansy ran to safety), and maybe nine out of twelve sixth-years, the rest being still underage) would have "played [their] part" simply by showing up to defend Hogwarts. Carol, who has examined the text quite carefully and finds that it does *not* present the objective "truth" (I'm putting "truth" in quotes here because DH is a work of fiction) but only Harry's hurried impression of chaotic events, focusing on people he knows and can easily recognize From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 18:22:00 2008 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:22:00 -0000 Subject: Respect (was: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180293 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > > the apparent harshness of a number of your > > responses jars against the camaraderie > > which many of us have shared over recent > > years on this group. > <<>> Lets call a spade a spade, this group has treated JKR like dirt for the last several months, and you should all be ashamed of yourself, especially the moderators who did nothing while the group degenerated to this point. ***Katie: Why should we all be ashamed of ourselves for critiqueing and analyzing a public work and the very public figure who created that work? There's no law that says I have to like the author to enjoy a book. Once a book is in the public domain, it no longer belongs solely to the author. I think a large part of the issue with those of us who have been criticizing JKR is that she doesn't seem to grasp that. These books are not her personal kingdom. We are allowed to feel differently and see the characters differently than she does. I know I feel like her attitude has been very dismissive of opinions other than her own. I also feel like if she's going to give interviews, she needs to be consistent and say the same thing every time. It was sort of funny in the beginning to see how inconsistent she was with her own characters, but now I just feel like it's sloppy and lazy. She's a public figure. She understands she will be criticized. I sincerely doubt that she's personally hurt by our comments on this board. This board is here for discussion of the books and everything associated with the books, including the author. No one should feel ashamed of themselves for expressing dissatisfaction with her interviews, or her opinions. >Eggplant wrote: And who would be the second most insulted person this group has aimed their sights on? Well that would be me. And my crime? Being just about the only one willing to publicly defend JKR. I said before I think this demonstrates an appalling smallness of spirit, and I stand by that statement. > > Eggplant ***Katie: No one is attacking you. Your posts can be somewhat...excited...in tone, and people respond in kind. I certainly don't think Geoff was attacking you. I think he's one of the most reasonable and unexcitable people on this list. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're insulting you. We are all entitled to our varyng opinions about this series and this author, and I think we generally do a good job of letting people have their own opinions. Katie > From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 18:39:19 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:39:19 -0000 Subject: Respect (was: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180294 > >>Eggplant: > > If there is anyone this group should have shown camaraderie toward > it is JKR, but she received none, instead for the last few months > this group has treated her with great disrespect, a prominent > member of this group came right out and said "I have lost all > respect for her". Betsy Hp: Okay, I know I'm probably just throwing fuel on a fire (sorry elves), but I disagree with the verasity of your premise. There have been many threads on favorite scenes, favorite characters, funniest lines, etc. All of those are, by definition, friendly towards JKR because they're praising her work. Also, there've been plenty of people speaking out about how much they love the series and the joy it's given them. Again, speaking positively and respectfully and, quite frankly, lovingly about JKR. But I also disagree with the basis of your premise. This is a discussion group and as such, various points of view are part and parcel. That includes unhappy views. I would think out and out trolling should be discouraged (ie, "I have no favorite lines because the books suck!!", etc.) but not negativity (ie, "I hated that scene because...", etc.). Otherwise the list would be reduced to, well, lists of favorites. > >>Eggplant: > And who criticized her for saying something so hateful against the > person who has given us such joy for so many years? Just me, nobody > else, just me. Betsy Hp: Hmm, I suspect that this is not the first (nor the last) time someone has insisted that JKR is sacrosanct. > >>Eggplant: > Lets call a spade a spade, this group has treated JKR like dirt for > the last several months, and you should all be ashamed of yourself, > especially the moderators who did nothing while the group > degenerated to this point. Betsy Hp: Again, you've ignored all the positive posts. True, *I've* not been kind to JKR. (I finished DH and said, "My God. She's evil!"; I've since decided she's less evil and more misguided.) And there've been others who agree that DH was not a swimming success nor JKR a particularly bright bulb. But we by no means make up the entire list. > >>Eggplant: > And who would be the second most insulted person this group has > aimed their sights on? Well that would be me. And my crime? Being > just about the only one willing to publicly defend JKR. I said > before I think this demonstrates an appalling smallness of spirit, > and I stand by that statement. Betsy Hp: Oh, I'm guessing Harry's been the victim of more insults than you. ;) I'm also quite certain that if anyone unleased their vitriolic rage against someone bravely standing up for JKR, the moderators took them kindly aside and whispered in their ear about manners and the treatment of fellow posters. As for me? I figure JKR's a big girl. I'm betting she can handle little old me calling her to task on an internet group. Looking at her bank balance might help. ;) Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 18:52:55 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:52:55 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180295 > >>Magpie: > > The moment just doesn't read as ambiguous to me in any way. > >>Carol: > Not *to you*, but it does read as ambiguous to others. ("Seemed" is > a clue that what Harry thinks he sees isn't necessarily accurate. > Remember "They didn't see what they thought they saw," Sirius > Black's description of his "murdering" the Muggles and Pettigrew? > Remember the Hufflepuffs thinking they saw Harry egging the > conjured snake on to Justin? Remember Harry seeing Snape "murder" > Dumbledore and DD pleading for his life? Betsy Hp: Yeah. I also remember the very clear cut, unambiguous reveals. Where is the big reveal showing us that the folks Harry thought were adults were actually fellow students as well? > >>Carol: > One of the themes of the books is that what appears to be true, > including what Harry perceives to be true, isn't necessarily true. > Betsy Hp: See, and again, this is where discussions pile up. Because I honestly don't think this was a theme at all. Harry was, for the most part, right about everything. Rather than Harry learning that his first instinct was probably wrong, he learns that his first instinct is usually right. Only birds of his particular feather can be full on trusted. Slytherins returning to the fight would have been a massive shock to Harry because it would have shown an old, comfortable prejudice of his to be wrong. *We never get that scene*. As far as Harry is concerned, Slytherin students attempted to betray him, left the school, joined Voldemort, and that's it. We never get a scene where Harry realizes Voldemort was lying or that his quick glance at Slughorn's group was misleading or that Slytherins were bullied out by McGonagall. I think you're identifying a gun (she used "seems") that never actually goes off. Or if it did, it was a tired little whimper that our hero never picks up on. Betsy Hp From distorted_illusion at juno.com Thu Jan 3 11:14:22 2008 From: distorted_illusion at juno.com (Siriuslysnogged-(LJ)) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:14:22 -0000 Subject: Agh. Kicking myself: Need help finding character quote sites. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180296 Awhile back someone posted some awesome reference sites [a few of them, actually] where each Harry Potter book was broken down into all the dialogue, and you could click on a character name and have every line that character said come up. Does anyone know of any sites like this? I have two separate ones for Severus Snape: http://www.snapecanonsite.com/contents.htm http://www.half-bloodprince.org/ And am kicking myself for not saving the links to ones that had all the other characters [even the very minor ones] Any help greatly appreciated!! Lisa KH From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 19:23:28 2008 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:23:28 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180297 Carol: "One of the themes of the books is that what appears to be true, including what Harry perceives to be true, isn't necessarily true." Betsy Hp: "See, and again, this is where discussions pile up. Because I honestly don't think this was a theme at all. Harry was, for the most part, right about everything. Rather than Harry learning that his first instinct was probably wrong, he learns that his first instinct is usually right. Only birds of his particular feather can be full on trusted." I don't think it's a theme, but it would be strange if every single perception was right. We do hear often enough that characters can be wrong. I agree with Betsy that Harry's got a better than average gut sense, which helps make him the man of action he is. Betsy again: "Slytherins returning to the fight would have been a massive shock to Harry because it would have shown an old, comfortable prejudice of his to be wrong." Harry seems to have enough flexibility of mind to give up beliefs that aren't correct. His thinking style seems to be action-oriented and adaptive. (I wonder what Harry's Myers-Briggs is.) Adaptive people tend to quickly discard beliefs that aren't working. If Slytherins had come back to fight Harry would have accepted them once he was sure it wasn't a ruse. I agree it would have been a bit of a shock at first. Jim Ferer From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 19:27:51 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:27:51 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180298 Carol earlier: > > " I just wish she would realize that her characters and the WW are no longer within her control. She's like a person who gives a Christmas present and then claims it as her own because she bought or made it. Wrong. The books belong to the readers, to interpret as they will (preferably in accordance with what's on the page)." > > k12listmomma wrote: > > That's how I feel. We own Dumbledore as we read him through 7 books. He became ours in our heads. But I feel like she still wants to write about him, to finish creating him as a character, as if she was planning another book when she intends to show a gay Dumbledore. > colebiancardi responded: > > I am sorry, but JKR OWNS Dumbledore. Others may feel that DD is "theirs" but that is, as you stated, in your head. And JKR has every right to finish creating her characters as she sees fit. > > Even if I disagree with it. I don't understand this "we own the characters because we love the books" stuff. We've been blessed, for good and for bad, with these characters because of the writer, not because of us. > > If JKR wants to come out and state that Lupin was really ESE, I may not agree with that, but that is her right. She can shape HER characters, which she gave birth to and formed, not us, any old way she wishes to. > > Trust me, JKR has upset me with some of her statements, but I would never go as far as stating her characters are MINE. > Carol responds: Nor did I (call them mine). I'm merely saying that the way she *imagined* Dumbledore and what she put on the page are not the same thing, and I reserve the right to interpret the characters and events based on what she really wrote, what appeared on the printed page, as opposed to the off-the-cuff and sometimes contradictory or inaccurate statements and often garbled statements she makes in interviews. Whatever she "intended," it's what's on the page that counts, and what's on the page is subject to varying interpretations, as this list shows. ALL I'm asking is that JKR respect the right of her readers to interpret the books consistently with what's on the page throughout the series (with perhaps a greater awareness of the flaws and gaps and contradictions than the author of the books is likely to have) rather than telling us that what she imagined as she wrote, or what she thinks she imagined ten years ago (given her memory of what she actually wrote, I don't trust her memory of what she only thought--I certainly can't remember my thoughts from ten hours ago, much less ten years) is definitive. Once she writes that encyclopedia, it will be canon, and that's fine. But until then, her thought process is subject to change, many of her explanations are impromptu, and we are free to disregard them as improbable, illogical, contradictory, inconsistent with canon, or whatever appears to be the case. Reading, like it or not, is a creative process, an imaginative recreation of what's on the page, and no two readers envision the characters and events, or interpret their significance, or read between the lines, in exactly the same way, as this list repeatedly demonstrates. And until gay DD or Luna Lovegood Scamander (or whatever) is in print, it remains just what JKR imagines happened or will happen to her characters, subject to change like the discarded scenes and characters she's told us about (the Slytherin Weasley cousin, Hermione's little sister, etc.). As for gay DD, we are at least free to imagine for ourselves whether two brilliant teenage boys kept their enthusiasm for one another on an intellectual plain or expressed their affection for one another openly in words or actions. And the text supports a purely intellectual infatuation. That is, in fact, the explanation that DD himself gives. (And I, for one, have a hard time imagining the reserved and secretive Albus Dumbledore whispering "I love you," even at seventeen.) BTW, if JKR were to state that Lupin is evil or that she "always imagined" him as evil, we, as readers, would have every right to point out canon that contradicts her perception of him and interpret him for ourselves, just as Shelley has every right to see Snape as unredeemed, though, IMO, canon supports JKR's view that he's redeemed. I'm sure Shelley could produce canon evidence that she interprets differently than I do to support that interpretation, and what matters in both cases is what's on the printed page and not what JKR has said in interviews. (DD is "the epitome of goodness"? Really? Still? Wonder what that makes Harry, whom DD calls a "better man" than himself.) Carol, noting that Melville, Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen and many other authors (and poets and playwrights) are interpreted differently by different critics and merely desiring (okay, demanding ;-) ) the same freedom of interpretation of JKR's works From va32h at comcast.net Thu Jan 3 19:43:24 2008 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:43:24 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180299 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > I just wish she would realize that her characters and the WW are > no longer within her control. She's like a person who gives a > Christmas present and then claims it as her own because she bought or > made it. Wrong. The books belong to the readers, to interpret as they > will (preferably in accordance with what's on the page). va32h: A friend from another list suggested this analogy (and I hope she won't mind me quoting her here): JKR is the doting mom and HP her adorable (and adored) baby. Like most mothers, she was the one and only authority on her offspring. Everyone looked to her for answers. Now that baby is all grown up the people he meets now don't much care what his mom has to say. We're past wanting to hear stories about his first step or first tooth. We'll go out with him and get to know him on our own terms, thanks, and don't wait up. Of course her characters and her stories belong to her, just as my children belong to me. But once they are sent out into the world, neither author nor mother can control how other people react to them. va32h From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jan 3 19:56:40 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:56:40 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180300 > > >>Carol: > > > > (Have you ever tried to identify faces in a rushing, pajama-clad > > crowd?) > > > > Betsy Hp: > Have you ever identified a hypnosis victim in a pitched battle in the > middle of the night? I'm afraid JKR doesn't cling close to > reality when she enters the realm of battle. Magpie: Well, yeah--why should I take for granted the descriptions of Quidditch games or think I know what went on during the TWT. After all, Harry had a lot on his mind then! I do take it for granted because this is a work of fiction and the author's the one telling me what's going on and the story is only made up of the words on the page. The author can trick me by tricking Harry, but as you point out, I know that happened because it was revealed as part of the story. The author would just be stupid to make scenes say something other than what she meant based on some torturous idea of what Harry would misunderstand, and JKR is not stupid that way. (Nor do I think Harry mistaking Slytherin students for shopkeepers etc. makes sense even from Harry's pov.) Examples like these, imo, only validate the idea that the pov is not that screwed up. If we were dealing with stuff as basic as: The Slytherins teased Harry from the sidelines. When what it means is: "It was the Hufflepuffs what did it. Figure out reasons why Harry got it wrong" I can't imagine anybody sticking with the things. On the contrary throughout the books JKR is basically clear and careful about seeing things correctly. When there's a discrepancy between what Harry interprets about the scene and what was real, it's given to us just as clearly. Then we can go back and clearly see where he went wrong. That's in no way the same whatever is going on here. Carol: Not *to you*, but it does read as ambiguous to others. ("Seemed" is a clue that what Harry thinks he sees isn't necessarily accurate. Remember "They didn't see what they thought they saw," Sirius Black's description of his "murdering" the Muggles and Pettigrew? Remember the Hufflepuffs thinking they saw Harry egging the conjured snake on to Justin? Remember Harry seeing Snape "murder" Dumbledore and DD pleading for his life? Magpie: I just don't think that objectively that sentence is so unclear as to really be called ambiguous. Yes it says seems, but is that enough to call into question that this is basically what we're seeing. I mean, I'm trying to read a fun light-hearted fantasy here, should I really have to think about a throwaway sentence like this that's never questioned in the text? This isn't one of those mysteries that are cleared up later. It's just a sentence adding more people to the room, with that information never revised anywhere by anyone. Sure it's just a basic impression, hence the use of the word "seems." I think JKR is instinctively choosing that because to say that Slughorn entered in with those people wouldn't hit quite the right note. It would imply greater knowledge than Harry has--not because he can't see the crowd, but because it suggests a method for recruiting we readers don't know. Maybe it's not the family and friends of *every* student already fighting (it still seems like that "seems" is obviously refering to the number of people), but I can't see any reason to assume it's actually other people perfectly recognizable to Harry. There's just no reason for an author to literally *disguise* the Slytherins if she's never going to reveal them. No matter how many shadows we cast over Harry's perception, a shadow is not a Slytherin. (Heh--the only context in which that is true!) This is all exactly the opposite of all the examples of Harry seeing one thing and our only later learning the truth of it, because this is never revised. If the narrator says, "It seemed like the whole school had turned out to see Harry in the TWT" sure the narrator's leaving it open enough to suggest that there has not been an exact headcount. But I still would get the general impression that Harry is surrounded by his fellow Hogwarts students. And I wouldn't take that sentence as "ambiguous" as to whether or not the the Dursleys have also turned out to see it unless I'm told they did. Carol: And, again, Phineas Nigellus *appears* to be--my reading--speaking of Slytherin House as a whole playing its part, not only the current and past HoHs, one of them dead, or the long-dead Regulus, whose part not even Phineas Nigellus understands, but the Slytherin students. That's how it reads to me. It makes no sense, again, to me, any other way.) Magpie: And to me it makes perfect sense plenty of other ways--and did to many other people, obviously, if they were both surprised by the revisionist idea of Slughorn appearing with a crowd of Slytherin students heretofore undescribed and yet not totally confused by Phineas' earlier statement. I have a hard time believing that if that's the only way the statement makes sense that it was never queried by an editor--as in, "So the Slytherin students returned and fought? Because you have them leave and never return." That seems like pretty basic editing to me--if you have somebody leave the room they can't do something in the room without coming back into it again. Despite the claims of some that Slytherins are suddenly such non- entities that they never need to be described, that's a pretty big thing to forget and easy enough to fix. "Slytherin House played its part" (more truly ambiguous, imo, because "Slytherin House" can mean different things in different contexts, as can "played its part) is imo a truly bizarre way for the author to tell us that oh yeah, there was one more group in the battle that was there. Her style for the rest of the battle was to just tell us who was there. Why does she suddenly lose her ability to speak plainly about something so simple just around this one issue? Carol: Except that the Captain and Tenille are not characters in the book and Slughorn neither could nor would have brought back an army of Inferi. Magpie: Just because Slughorn has some connection to characters or has had scenes with them in the past doesn't have any bearing on this sentence. (I think one would have an even better argument for a minor walk-on like Sanguini being there since while he's no more identified than the Slytherins, and no more a part of the groups that are described at least he, unlike the Slytherins, wasn't specifically shown buggering off earlier.) I don't have to make up reasons as to why Slughorn (who knows dark magic) couldn't have brought Inferi with him--that would be going right back down the rabbit hole. There's no reason for me to explain why he didn't bring Inferi because nobody said he did. Inferi and Slytherin students are equally absent from this sentence. I'm intentionally including examples from outside the book because once you start saying something can exist just because the author didn't specifically say it wasn't there, anything could be there. Slughorn bringing Slytherins back with him might seem more in the realm of possibilities of canon, but when it comes to the actual canon Slughorn bringing Slytehrins back with him is no more stated than Voldemort and Harry being twins separated at birth on Tatooine. This comes up in fanfic all the time too, where someone will try to claim that their fanfic is "more canon" because they've got, for instance, a canon pairing. But the fact is, a story where Ron and Hermione start dating in fourth year isn't any more canon than a story where Harry and Snape are dating in sixth year. One's a bit wilder than the other, but neither are canon. > Magpie: > My vote goes to that he knows because this is just the narrator telling us what's going on in the battle and we're not supposed to be caring about stuff like how Harry has recognized these people (though it certainly seems to shoot down the idea that he couldn't recognize people he knows even better). Carol: Oops. JKR is not using an omniscient narrator here or even a third-person dramatic narrator who reports the events objectively from the outside without entering the minds of the characters, as in "Spinner's End." She's using her usual third-person-limited narrator *interpreting* what Harry sees, *limited* both by what Harry sees (and hears) and by Harry's knowledge, which, for the umpteenth time, does *not* include the identity of the people who *look like* the entire population of Hogsmeade and the parents of "all the students who remained [at Hogwarts] to fight," the last *interpretation* being extremely unlikely if not impossible, not only because those kids had no way to contact their parents, nor did Slughorn, who would only have known the parents of his own students and been able to contact him because those kids were with him, but because some of the parents of students who remained to fight (Seamus's father, for example) were Muggles. (Did his mother come from Ireland to fight? I rather doubt it.) Magpie: No, not oops. I did not forget how the pov worked. I'm saying, for the umpteenth time, that the author's trying to describe a battle here the best way she can and so I don't think she'd be more clear, not less, about what she feeds our imaginations. And the picture she's sketched out here, the only one we readers are ever given, is of shopkeepers and friends and family of students already fighting. Those are the only people that are ever suggested are there. As an author, you put the information in the text the way you can. A few words in the book just saying that Slughorn returned with the Slytherins would do it. Dozens of paragraphs from readers explaining to me how they can imagine the Slytherins there with Harry not seeing them is meaningless. The narrator is telling us what's happening. Yes, the narrator is doing it through Harry's limited pov as usual, so there's some interpretation there but the main point is: there's a battle scene here, and we need to be able to follow it for us to know what happened. Carol: "And now there were more, even more, people storming up the front steps, and *Harry saw* Charlie Weasley overtaking Horace Slughorn, who was still wearing his emerald pajamas. They *seemed* to have returned ath the head of *whatr looked like* the families and friends of every student who had remained to fight, along with the shopkeepers and homeowners of Hogsmeade." Magpie: Yeah, and that's all she wrote. No later reveal that in fact "what looked like" the family and friends and shopkeepers were in fact the Slytherin students even more familiar to Harry. So why on earth would I revisit the sentence and put them in there? Harry's given me a perfectly good general impression of who's there. It's his impression, but an impression of something that he's qualified enough to be accurate on. (It's not like Harry mistaking Crouch Jr. for Moody when he's polyjuiced.) Basically, the only evidence lies in the words "seemed to" and "looked like" to describe the crowd of people coming from the outside who are therefore better described in this way (Wow, they seem to have rounded up the friends and family of everybody here and everybody in Hogsmeade- -hurray!). Even if you accept that this means Harry could be wrong, you still need to correct him by putting the Slytherins there *literally* afterwards, and that never happens. It's one of many snapshots of the battle. We see it and move on. I understand how the battle works after that, but explanations as to why Harry isn't describing all the Slytherins there simply don't hold up to me when the book hasn't put them there to begin with. If the author had just included the obvious words that included the Slytherin students in the crowd with Slughorn (hell in her interview she seems to have dispensed with the canonical crowd completely and has Slughorn bursting in with his students--a scene that's vivid enough to her five months later, but not to Harry or her narrator who are still stuck with what she wrote) I wouldn't need any explanation as to why Harry would be describing people other than them. They'd have been introduced and I'd just know they were there. It's really not asking much. It's asking nothing at all to provide the basic task of telling me the people I'm supposed to think are in the scene. Carol: Carol, who has examined the text quite carefully and finds that it does *not* present the objective "truth" (I'm putting "truth" in quotes here because DH is a work of fiction) but only Harry's hurried impression of chaotic events, focusing on people he knows and can easily recognize Magpie: I don't think this is about objective truth, but normal reading and writing. This is asking me to go beyond both in ways that frankly just seem unnecessary and irritating. JKR described the scene perfectly fine. It doesn't include Slytherins. It doesn't need to include Slytherins. If she wanted it to include Slytherins, all she had to do was put them on the page. -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 19:56:56 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:56:56 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back - New Tangent; Rallying the Troops In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180301 --- "Carol" wrote: bboyminn: As always, or usually at any rate, I agree with Carol, and even more so, as usual, I am off on my own tangent. Further, is am somewhat keeping in the spirit of my 'rewrite' thread. ... > Carol- in part: > > Slughorn did *canonically* accompany his own students to the > Hog's Head (as well as younger students form other Houses). > ... Harry's *interpretation* that the adults he sees are the > parents of kids who, not having cell phones, had no way of > contacting their parents (they weren't allowed to send owls) > makes no sense.... > bboyminn: So, exactly what did happen at the Hog's Head, in Hogsmeade, and in the wizard world while Harry was distracted by the on-going battle at Hogwarts? How did Slughorn, or who ever, manage to gather together so many people so quickly? Though, notice, it wasn't really all the quickly. Let's start with Slughorn and Slytherin House existing the Portrait at the Hog's Head. What happens next? Do they all go down stairs and order a butterbeer? I suspect, especially knowing that more student would be following them out the portrait, that the existing student began to disperse right away. I think some apparated, though very few, other would leave by Floo Network. However, Floo would be very slow with only one fireplace and hundreds of kids pouring in to the Hog's Head. I suspect Slughorn orderd the Prefects to take as many students as they could to the houses and shops of Hogsmeade, explain the situation and asked to use their fireplaces. Now we have the word spreading around town quickly; students are being evacuated and locals are being rallied. I further suspect that Slughorn told everyone who came out of the portrait to rush home and explain that Hogwarts was under attack, and that anyone who wanted to defend Hogwarts should return as quickly as possible. Note, though I should have mentioned this earlier, we know that DE's were patrolling Hogsmeade, but it is very unlikely that they are still there. Most likely the abandon the town to go and fight at Hogwarts. So, no DE's to interfere with evacuation or rallying the troops. Now as the evacuation is becoming complete, more people are beginning to return to join the fight. Perhaps even a few centaurs came to the village to see that things were going well and to do their own part to gather forces against the DE's. Organizing and controlling a group like this, especially one that spontaneously forms is no small task. I suspect it took a while to get very one organized and ready to move as a group. Note that some student may have elected not to go home, but to merely stick their head in the Floo fire and give their warning and rallying cry, and immediately return to Hogsmeade. Also note, that members of the Ministry, as representatives of the Ministry, were conspicuously absent from the fight. True there were some Aurors there, but they were members of the Order. There were some Ministry members there but only the ones controlled by DE's. The Ministry itself did not join the fight, as it were, until it was over and Shacklebolt took charge. (Can you spell FEMA?) So, the absents of cell phone only means that you are looking at this from a muggle perspective. There are several means of communication and transportation available to those fleeing Hogwarts, and I can see them rallying a force to defend Hogwarts reasonably quickly. Just rambling as usual. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 20:14:43 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:14:43 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ some War and peace spoiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180302 > va32h: > Of course her characters and her stories belong to her, just as my > children belong to me. But once they are sent out into the world, > neither author nor mother can control how other people react to them. Alla: Control how other people react to them? Of course not I agree. But contrary to real babies who when grow up parents cannot make decisions for them, she if she chooses so still can make ANY decisions she wishes to, if she does as much as writes a sequel. As Julie said for example if she wants to write that Snape is resurrected, that would be it ? in the new book Snape will be resurrected by some means ? after all no body was found etc and this version will be canon, no matter how much I or any other reader would still think of him as dead in my head. There is a great example of it with my beloved War and Peace. I recently read the first draft of the novel, which I never knew existed as finished product. Believe me it is a great book in its own right, well IMO anyways. I even think that in some aspects it is more enjoyable ? less philosophical interludes or almost none. It is also in many aspects very similar to finished product plot wise. BUT there is at least one major difference besides book being shorter and not going into few more years ? one main character, specifically my dearly loved Prince Andrey survives the end of the book. Hmmm, so I would guess that in the minds of many fans of the novel who read the first draft Andrey lived as well. But in a few years Tolstoy is doing a rewrite of the novel and indeed publishes it too and this version becomes known to general public and survives for almost 150 years now. I would speculate that some fans were not happy with Tolstoy at all. I mean I know I was unhappy every time I read about his death and I reread this book at least every couple years. So, to go back to Potterverse what I am trying to say is that if nothing else but only by virtue of Rowling's possibly doing anything she wishes with the characters, if she writes another book, I consider her version official. I do not consider her version always taking precedent in my mind, by all means. I gave examples in the past of ignoring some of her interview statements as contradicting my picture of potterverse, but it does not mean that I consider mine version to be of same value as hers. Simply because I feel that I had been allowed to play in her universe and that I did not invent it. It is my opinion of course, but like if Tolstoy was still alive, I would never say that by rewriting the novel he dared to interfere with my prince Andrey, whom I own in my head (?) and that is why he is not allowed to kill him off or something. Again IMO. I mean, I know that so far she is doing interviews, but just by the fact that she CAN write a sequel, her version will always be official for me whether I agree with it or not. JMO, Alla. From angellima at xtra.co.nz Thu Jan 3 20:13:32 2008 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:13:32 +1300 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character Message-ID: <002001c84e45$1d42dbd0$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 180303 Carol: But even straightforward sentences sometimes turn out to be unreliable (see my "Harry knew" sentences in a previous post, or the infamous "Snape was going to Crucio him into insanity"). You have to consider context. How much is Harry likely to know or understand about what he's seeing? How likely is he to interpret it correctly? In this instance, his guess may be close, but it's probably not right on the money. (How could he possibly identify every person in that crowd? He couldn't.) Angel: How about this way? In your Snape was making Harry's scar hurt scenario, that is exactly what the author intended! I don't exactly see how the author intended us to believe Slytherins returned when they were clearly labelled as deserters yet returned seemingly... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From va32h at comcast.net Thu Jan 3 20:37:55 2008 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:37:55 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ some War and peace spoiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180304 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > But contrary to real babies who when grow up parents cannot make > decisions for them, she if she chooses so still can make ANY > decisions she wishes to, if she does as much as writes a sequel. va32h: Are any of us really disputing that JKR has the legal right and physical ability to do so? I don't think so. What I see is people expressing their like or dislike of her doing so, or wondering what her motivations are for doing so, or questioning the wisdom of her doing so. IMO, for someone who was so darn eager to finish the HP saga and move on to something else in her life, she sure can't shut up about HP. The interviews, the tour, the Beedle book, more interviews, the website update. If she had put as much energy into writing DH as she has to talking about DH post-publication it might have been a better book. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 20:46:55 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:46:55 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ some War and peace spoiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180305 > va32h: > > Are any of us really disputing that JKR has the legal right and > physical ability to do so? I don't think so. What I see is people > expressing their like or dislike of her doing so, or wondering what > her motivations are for doing so, or questioning the wisdom of her > doing so. > > IMO, for someone who was so darn eager to finish the HP saga and move > on to something else in her life, she sure can't shut up about HP. > The interviews, the tour, the Beedle book, more interviews, the > website update. If she had put as much energy into writing DH as she > has to talking about DH post-publication it might have been a better > book. > Alla: Right and I am disagreeing with part of what some people disputing. Specifically what I am disagreeing with is that she cannot say that her version is official, you know? I disagree that she is not entitled to talk about the characters as much as she wants to. I think she earned that right. I respect people's desire to have their own version of the characters in their head, I definitely do, as I said in some aspects my picture is different too. BUT I think that JKR's version is official and she has a right to say it. This is the only part I am disagreeing with and not even sure that I am disagreeing with you - some earlier comments on the thread. Moreover, I even agree that some comments of hers may come as possessive, etc. I just do not begrudge her for that, that's all. I know if I came up with these characters I would have had a hard time letting go as well. Alla From lealess at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 20:53:17 2008 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:53:17 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: <002001c84e45$1d42dbd0$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180306 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Angel Lima" wrote: > > Carol: > But even straightforward sentences sometimes turn out unreliable > (see my "Harry knew" sentences in a previous post, or the infamous > "Snape was going to Crucio him into insanity"). You have to consider > context. How much is Harry likely to know or understand about what > he's seeing? How likely is he to interpret it correctly? In this > instance, his guess may be close, but it's probably not right on the > money. (How could he possibly identify every person in that crowd? > He couldn't.) > > Angel: > How about this way? In your Snape was making Harry's scar hurt > scenario, that is exactly what the author intended! I don't > exactly see how the author intended us to believe Slytherins > returned when they were clearly labelled as deserters yet returned > seemingly... > > To put this another way, and to echo Magpie's lengthy comment, I do not remember JKR lying about what Harry physically saw or felt. Harry saw what he saw. He felt what he felt. He wasn't hallucinating. His *interpretations* were incorrect, not his eyesight or ability to feel pain. How do we know this? JKR came back later to correct the mistaken interpretations with fuller explanations -- or at least, she should have done, in the text. lealess From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 21:02:46 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:02:46 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180307 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: > To put this another way, and to echo Magpie's lengthy comment, I do > not remember JKR lying about what Harry physically saw or felt. > Harry saw what he saw. He felt what he felt. He wasn't > hallucinating. His *interpretations* were incorrect, not his > eyesight or ability to feel pain. > > How do we know this? JKR came back later to correct the mistaken > interpretations with fuller explanations -- or at least, she should > have done, in the text. Alla: Not always and not as far as I remember. Yes, I agree with you Harry's ability to feel something is often correct and when Snape attacks him on first lesson, he does just that - attacks him on the first lesson. Let's put aside whether Snape hated him - I believe he is correct, but this is an interpretation. Fast forward to Occlumency lessons - Harry feels pain, doesn't he? Do we ever find out if Snape had anything to do whatsoever with that pain? Do we ever find out if Harry had pain from the lesson, if he had pain at all or was it all in his mind? I mean I vehemently argued in the past that Snape could be deliberately opening his mind to Voldemort, but in light of all the information would he really do that? How exactly was this information corrected? From angellima at xtra.co.nz Thu Jan 3 21:18:09 2008 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:18:09 +1300 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character Message-ID: <004401c84e4e$23c667c0$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 180308 Alla: The only thing this comment showed to me was that sometimes or more than sometimes Dumbledore can be an *sshole. I never took it as anything more deep than that - that author agrees with this comment or something like that. My opinion of course. Angel: I will definitely take DD being an @$$ lol. However he, of profound knowledge and wisdom who plotted just about every nook and cranny of this war even posthumously and whose word was command to almost all especially Harry, said it with such depth and emotion. Alla: Why is that? Harry never had been known for remembering many names, he sees Slughorn already, so many other things are on his mind - finding diadema, etc. You think he will be oh so very concerned with whether Blaise and Theo and others returned to fight? Angel: How many people equated this sentence with Slytherins returning before JKR said so, I wonder? Even so, that is highly optimistic...drats to be me then :) I cannot get over the fact though that Slytherin deserting the ranks was perfectly in print. No question about it. Their return would thus be a big issue yet somehow it is slipped in seemingly, deftly, subtly twixt a group of others that were mentioned except them! The examples of Harry's misconceptions or skewed views based on bias or ineptitude cannot hold water here I'm afraid as the instances so far mentioned were intentional on the author's part, to lead the reader astray from what was actually happening...red herrings or as I had thought, to teach Harry a bigger lesson about preconceptions as his views were skewed by his own preconceived ideas of whom certain people and groups were. At this late stage of the book Harry's view and narrator's had to be at the very least a whole lot clearer than listing returnees as friends and families of those that stayed to fight as well as shopkeepers of Hogsmeade to be construed as the returning deserters of Hogwarts namely the Slytherin house returning! House UNITY is an integral part of HP. We had been reading about it for 6 whole books. Then in the final book in the final stance, Slytherins up and LEAVE!!! Their return was paramount to unity and I cannot buy that JKR would slip that in so subtly we are in a state of fiddlesticks :) Do you not also think that Harry busy as he was with saving the world would have been jarred out of that mindset to see Slytherin deserters - any that he would recognise (Theo and Blaise) return? He would have mentioned it because he was in a highly emotive state, just as he drawled over all the houses standing between him and Slytherins, notice even with the same worries on his mind, he paused. He stopped, he was jarred from his worries to revel in being buffered by the houses. Harry would have been gobsmacked at the Slytherin change of heart if there had been one! He would have left the battle to sulk into his shirt lol. Carol: And will someone please tell me how the students who remained at Hogwarts to fight contacted their parents? The only parents who could have been contacted are those of the students who went with Slughorn to the Hog's Head. Not to mention that Slughorn is not likely to contact the parents of any students not in his own House. Angel: You did talk about an inconsistent narrator there ya know and I, sometimes a careless author But to keep closer to what is in print, the DA and their friends and families got in via the DA channel and who's to say the twins radio network didn't put out the word before departing for Hogwarts. It's a little wayward but not nearly as convoluted as believing Slytherins returned on the coattails of parents and friends of children who stayed to fight. Notice too the goat suggested they hold onto the Slytherin kids for leverage. Alla: I mean I vehemently argued in the past that Snape could be deliberately opening his mind to Voldemort, but in light of all the information would he really do that? How exactly was this information corrected? Angel: That need not have been corrected. As the climax of OotP and DH verified, Voldemort was getting stronger and Harry was eager to see what Voldemort was up to. Being privvy to Voldy's mood and opening himself to Voldy was the cause of his own distress but admittedly the lessons did weaken his resolve not because of Severus but of the nature of occlumency itself. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lealess at yahoo.com Thu Jan 3 21:23:08 2008 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:23:08 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180309 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: > > > To put this another way, and to echo Magpie's lengthy comment, I > > do not remember JKR lying about what Harry physically saw or > > felt. Harry saw what he saw. He felt what he felt. He wasn't > > hallucinating. His *interpretations* were incorrect, not his > > eyesight or ability to feel pain. > > > > How do we know this? JKR came back later to correct the mistaken > > interpretations with fuller explanations -- or at least, she > > should have done, in the text. > > > Alla: > > Not always and not as far as I remember. Yes, I agree with you > Harry's ability to feel something is often correct and when Snape > attacks him on first lesson, he does just that - attacks him on the > first lesson. Let's put aside whether Snape hated him - I believe > he is correct, but this is an interpretation. > > Fast forward to Occlumency lessons - Harry feels pain, doesn't he? > > Do we ever find out if Snape had anything to do whatsoever with > that pain? Do we ever find out if Harry had pain from the lesson, > if he had pain at all or was it all in his mind? > > I mean I vehemently argued in the past that Snape could be > deliberately opening his mind to Voldemort, but in light of all the > information would he really do that? > > How exactly was this information corrected? > I don't remember the information being corrected! This is possibly one of the things that JKR either felt was not important to the story or dropped the ball on, depending on the importance of the question to you. To my mind, she dropped a lot of balls in the end, to focus exclusively on Harry's travels in DH. There are a plethora of unanswered questions, things that will never be answered, until JKR comes out with something else that will hopefully be well-thought-out and consistent with earlier canon. I can think of even more reasons why the Occlumency lessons caused pain to Harry, but most of these explanations would be pure speculation with little foundation in the text, and imagining them does not make them canon. lealess From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 3 23:55:22 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:55:22 -0000 Subject: Respect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180310 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > the apparent harshness of a number of your > > responses jars against the camaraderie > > which many of us have shared over recent > > years on this group. Eggplant: > You know Geoff I've got to say your words do not move me, not one bit, > and I will tell you why. If there is anyone this group should have > shown camaraderie toward it is JKR, but she received none, instead for > the last few months this group has treated her with great disrespect, > a prominent member of this group came right out and said "I have lost > all respect for her". And who criticized her for saying something so > hateful against the person who has given us such joy for so many > years? Just me, nobody else, just me. Lets call a spade a spade, this > group has treated JKR like dirt for the last several months, and you > should all be ashamed of yourself, especially the moderators who did > nothing while the group degenerated to this point. > > And who would be the second most insulted person this group has aimed > their sights on? Well that would be me. And my crime? Being just about > the only one willing to publicly defend JKR. I said before I think > this demonstrates an appalling smallness of spirit, and I stand by > that statement. Geoff: I awaited your reply to see if it was what I expected and, sadly, I was not disappointed. Having read many of your posts and exchanged views with you on numerous occasions, I find your reaction and answers to many messages are very often extremely predictable. In this latest post, I fear that you have resorted to making sweeping generalisations and in so doing have managed to malign two groups of people - every member of this group except yourself, and then the team of Moderators. Several months ago, I expressed concern that contributors posting about whether they had liked DH or not were tending to express disappointment and I remarked that I did not feel that this was necessarily the view of everyone. I personally have stated on more than one occasion that, in general, I was satisfied with the book and I certainly haven't disparaged JKR and her work. If I might misquote Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of dissatisfaction is that satisfied men do nothing." After I posted that message, many contributors replied to indicate their agreement to my assertion that DH was not a disaster area but had much to commend it. I also received several off-group emails echoing that sentiment. So to generalise and say that "this group has treated her with great disrespect" is to fly in the face of the evidence that came from that discussion. It has been pointed out by several posters that an author cannot expect everyone to heap praise on his or her head. I often speak out in favour of the Harry Potter books to friends who either do not know them or have picked up critical observations without checking fatcs - as I did before I started to read the series. If you think that JKR has been hard done by, I suggest you look up some of the vitriolic comments that were made, especially by the literary establishment, about Tolkien's books; Germaine Greer would fit easily into the character of Rita Skeeter in that regard. C.S.Lewis has also come under fire from time to time. No, Eggplant, I agree that there are folk who do not like the books but not all of them would express disrespect. in fact, if you analyse the comment about losing respect, it does not necessarily mean that the speaker (or writer) now has disrespect, but possibly *no* respect and that is a different kettle of fish altogether. Continuing my train of thought from my last sentence, there are conversely a horde of members who do like and appreciate and respect JKR's work. To move on to the moderators. Perhaps I must "out" myself now by saying that I am a List Elf. Actually the identity of the List Elves is not a state secret; if you care to investigate the left-hand panel of this page, you can find out who's who. Moderators total about 25 members of the group. We are scattered across the world. I am working with a group of three others in one p articular area ; I'm in the UK, two are in the US and the other is in Fiji. So we have to contend with different time zones, some of us work, not enjoying retirement status like myself and some have families and other demands on their time. We work as volunteers to watch over the group and try to see that it runs smoothly and that the needs of members are addressed. Let me assure you that the last thing we do is nothing. We have been seriously concerned in the recent past over several issues on the various HPFGU groups including the general "health" of the group since the publication of DH so the job of being an Ombudsman is not left to individual group members and any ADMIN messages which are posted are the result of lengthy discussions between ourselves. Finally, I would refute your comment that there is no camaraderie here. I have been an HPFGU member for four and a half years and have made many friends both on-group and off-group and have learned to be willing to listen to other people's view when expressing my own - subjective - views because many of the things we discuss here do not have substantive and totally defined answers. Geoff (AKA Exmoor Elf) From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Jan 3 21:12:00 2008 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:12:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477D4FA0.5070908@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180311 Pippin wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > >> So, what if we speculatively rewrite the books, in fact, why >> don't we all do it right now? >> > > Pippin Fowler: > Not to play copyright cop, but the proposal could be against the U.S. > copyright law. > > from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html > Bart: Here's an excellent site on the subject: http://www.chillingeffects.org/fanfic/notice.cgi?NoticeID=522 Note that there are also trademarks in play; for example, the Sherlock Holmes stories are all in the public domain, but the character is still trademarked, so if you tried to create derivative fiction, you may find yourself under lawsuit for trademark violation. Even JKR is not immune; when GOF was made in the media that must not be named, she was the recipient of a lawsuit from a band called "The Wyrd Sisters", whose name was trademarked, and did not want another band with the same name appearing in GOF. I don't have a list of precisely what is trademarked out of the HP series, but with the Harry Potter merchandise, you can be sure it's a good portion of it. I'm trying to find a source, but I believe that the Lexicon lawsuit involves trademarks as well as copyrights. Bart [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 4 00:51:54 2008 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:51:54 +0000 Subject: Rowling interview transcript Message-ID: <477D832A.1040004@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180312 The whole text is available here: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/1/2/pottercast-131-j-k-rowling-interview-transcript I just want to comment on one bit: -------------------- SU: You know, Snape is so amazing, was he truly meant to be in Slytherin, Snape? JKR: Yes, God, yes, definitely, at the time that he was sorted. I believe what Dumbledore believes when he says to Snape in the very last book, Sometimes I think we sort too soon. To judge someone at the age of eleven, to judge them, to set their future course so young seems to me to be a very harsh thing to do. And it doesnt take into account the fact that we do change and evolve. A lot of people are at forty what they were at eleven, having said that, so I think Sorting Hat is shrewd, but Snape does redeem himself and (SU: Yeah.) it fails to take that into account. ---------------------- So, we can't delude ourselves that it was just old sociopath Dumbledore talking. Nope, it's the whole authorial intent: he was a bad child, so the Slytherin was the right place for him, but he outgrew it later. Mighty white of you, Severus. And yet in the next answer she repeats - "they are not all bad, and, well, far from it." I just don't get it, how it sits together for her - Slytherins are not all bad, and yet someone who becomes a better person, stops being suitable for Slytherin. Irene From liliput99ar at yahoo.com.ar Fri Jan 4 02:12:37 2008 From: liliput99ar at yahoo.com.ar (liliput99ar) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:12:37 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: <004a01c84e15$652eba20$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180313 > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > >> So, what if we speculatively rewrite the books, in fact, why > >> don't we all do it right now? > > > > Nora: I would have made Harry remember the mirror Sirius gave him to keep in touch!! (OotP). I could not bear at that time the thinking of how different things could have been... How do you think OoTP would have finished? how would Harry finally learnt about the prophecy? Would Dumbledore start looking at him by his own? would Snape had played a role there? Or maybe poor Trelawney could have found herself some enlightment. She is so pathetic. Oh that mirror... From va32h at comcast.net Fri Jan 4 02:52:14 2008 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:52:14 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180314 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "liliput99ar" wrote: > I would have made Harry remember the mirror Sirius gave him to keep in > touch!! (OotP). I could not bear at that time the thinking of how > different things could have been... > SNIP > Oh that mirror... > I agree that the mirror in OoTP was tragic. But if we are limiting ourselves to just re-doing DH...I had Harry repair his mirror, then find the other mirror at 12GP. He manages to get it to Ginny, and thus is able to keep tabs on all that is going on at Hogwarts. I realize that Harry needed to *not* be at Hogwarts during DH, but I also really missed seeing those characters and knowing what happened to them. Between the mirror, careful consulting of the Marauder's Map, and communication with Kreacher and Dobby (since of course Harry can summon Kreacher anywhere at any time) I have Harry (and thus the reader) being much more aware of the situation at Hogwarts. va32h From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 03:02:43 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:02:43 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: <004401c84e4e$23c667c0$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180315 > Angel: > How many people equated this sentence with Slytherins returning > before JKR said so, I wonder? Even so, that is highly optimistic > ...drats to be me then :) Mike: Raising my hand again, I said before that I assumed I missed it on my first read through, but that it must have been there. I also thought I had seen a bunch of Slytherins in the Great Hall wrap-up party, besides the Malfoys. I figured Phineas Nigellus wouldn't have made his "Slytherin played it's part" comment after only Snape and Sluggy, and I didn't figure he knew about Regulus any more than anybody else did, besides Kreacher and the Trio. Actually, my first reaction to Phineas was, 'Yeah, and their part was to get the hell out of the way'. But then I figured that was not what Phineas meant. I'm not claiming to be an empath with JKR's imagination, I'm claiming to be a sloppy and soppy reader. It wasn't until we, on this list, got to discussing Slytherin's lack of redemption that I realized my perception was mistaken. Alla's, Carol's, and others arguments have caused me to replace this nugget into my personal perspective bank, it just works better for me, even if I won't try to argue the point. Your mileage obviously does vary. > Angel: > I cannot get over the fact though that Slytherin deserting the > ranks was perfectly in print. No question about it. Their return > would thus be a big issue yet somehow it is slipped in seemingly, > deftly, subtly twixt a group of others that were mentioned except > them! Mike: I would never argue that Slytherin returning was there or that there even is room to interpret that it's there, for my own part. First off, I stopped considering JKR interviews, *all* interviews - past, present, or future - to be canon. Second off, imo something this important had to be clearly written, leaving room for speculation doesn't cut it in this case. But that's my interpretation of canon. Someone said that maybe JKR didn't consider it important enough to waste the words. That redeeming Slytherin was neither her objective nor something that importantly affected Harry's journey. In that spirit, I can understand how some can see room for allowing some Slytherins to be in that group of reinforcements. Mind you, I didn't and don't care a lick whether Slytherin was redeemed. I'm not sure if they either need to be, or if they should be redeemed. I've always approached Slytherins involvement with Voldemort as a seduced group, predisposed to be sure, but fooled as much as was Ginny in CoS and explained by Dumbledore. But I also hold with Steve's assessment that Slytherin's road to redemption has to come from within. Slytherin is responsible for their reputation because of their attitudes. Change their attitudes and others may change their assessments, but Slytherin must own up and make the first step. > Angel: > House UNITY is an integral part of HP. We had been reading about > it for 6 whole books. Mike: I must disagree. AFAIK, House Unity consisted of one song by the Sorting Hat, rejected out of hand by all concerned at that time. Just because fandom picked up the flag and carried it on, does not make it a predominant theme of the books. And that mention by the Sorting Hat came in the fifth book, after Voldemort's return. I didn't see any unity theme cropping up in the first four books. If I missed it, could some here enlighten me? > Angel: > That need not have been corrected. Mike: Not to be argumentative, but you kind of side-stepped Alla's question. She was making the point that Harry thought maybe Snape was softening him up for Voldemort's mind incursions. Despite knowing Snape's ultimate loyalty, we still don't know if those Occlumency lessons actually made it easier for Voldemort to plant the false images into Harry's mind. It wasn't a matter of needing something corrected. Alla was using it to point out something vague and undecided in Harry's past perceptions that was never ultimately resolved. Mike From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 03:16:58 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:16:58 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180316 > Angel: > House UNITY is an integral part of HP. We had been reading about > it for 6 whole books. Mike: I must disagree. AFAIK, House Unity consisted of one song by the Sorting Hat, rejected out of hand by all concerned at that time. Just because fandom picked up the flag and carried it on, does not make it a predominant theme of the books. And that mention by the Sorting Hat came in the fifth book, after Voldemort's return. I didn't see any unity theme cropping up in the first four books. If I missed it, could some here enlighten me? Alla: Not me, SOOOOO not me. And thank goodness on that topic I have lots and lots old posts of mine to show that I argued that house unity is NOT a predominant theme of HP books, had never been a predominant theme of HP books and had been fandom invention for the most part indeed. One song and one interview, hehhe. And indeed if one takes a consistent approach, for which I respect you very much Mike - no double standards at all, even if disagree with this approach, the interview does not exist indeed. So, we have one song and that is the extrapolation that house unity is the predominant theme of HP books? Not in my opinion. Heee, this is another case of arguing something for too long. I warmed up to house unity a little by the end, but I definitely thought that if house unity were to happen Slytherins had to undergo major change. Hmmm, as house I think it did not happen yet. But individuals had been shown to change, no? > Angel: > That need not have been corrected. Mike: Not to be argumentative, but you kind of side-stepped Alla's question. She was making the point that Harry thought maybe Snape was softening him up for Voldemort's mind incursions. Despite knowing Snape's ultimate loyalty, we still don't know if those Occlumency lessons actually made it easier for Voldemort to plant the false images into Harry's mind. It wasn't a matter of needing something corrected. Alla was using it to point out something vague and undecided in Harry's past perceptions that was never ultimately resolved. Alla: Mike I do love you so. If you had not been argumentative I would have been LOL. Indeed whether it needs to be corrected or it does not need to be corrected was not my point at all. My point was precisely what you mentioned - Magpie, Betsy, others were saying that in many instance of narrator being wrong it was specifically corrected. I brought up the example where it was not corrected and still does anybody have much doubt that narrator was wrong? Or at least are there many list members who are SURE what happened? And yeah, I think this is precisely the issue of the similar importance of whether Slytherins returned to fight. Sort of very secondary one. IMO of course. See I believe that seeing Slughorn and knowing about Regulus would have been shock enough for Harry and find it plausible that he did not look clearly. Oh and not that I care one way or another. I am just arguing the plausibility, that's all. I do NOT think that Slytherin as house was redeemed, you know? I think individuals of this house were redeemed and possible return of SOME slytherins students could be in line with it or not. Maybe it were same Slyths who stood for Cedric, who knows? They would have been of age, no? But it does not cancell what Draco and his goons did for me, no what Pancy did. It just shows to me that not all Slytherins have the same mindset. JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Jan 4 03:45:58 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:45:58 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: <004401c84e4e$23c667c0$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180317 > Angel: > I will definitely take DD being an @$$ lol. > > However he, of profound knowledge and wisdom who plotted just about every nook and cranny of this war even posthumously and whose word was command to almost all especially Harry, said it with such depth and emotion. > > Alla: > Why is that? Harry never had been known for remembering many names, > he sees Slughorn already, so many other things are on his mind - > finding diadema, etc. You think he will be oh so very concerned with > whether Blaise and Theo and others returned to fight? Magpie: Not to jump back to this post that I think I already responded to, but I feel compelled to jump off it to put in that I think the whole issue of remembering names is irrelevent. First because it makes it seem like Harry's being called upon to start reciting names or something, which is far more absurd than the narration saying Slytherins returned. The scene names plenty of other people without Harry actually having to call them to his own mind or not. When Harry notes Zacharias running away in battle-somebody he's no more fond of than Blaise Zabini--it doesn't seem odd that he'd remember his name at such a moment. The narration says Zach Smith, whom readers know, is pushing away first years. Names may be important for Harry but they're far more important for us as readers. Usually in books--and JKR has never stepped outside this particular usually that I remember--once a character's name has been established they just are their name (probably naturally and with relief). The narrator can tell us that Harry has forgotten a name, but the limited 3rd person narration efficiently using the labels we readers know (be it a name or "Slytherin students") is not the same as Harry listing or even consciously remembering anybody's name. Sometimes the narration makes a point of Harry learning a name, in which case it describes the person and then we learn the name with Harry, but once the name's learned it's just used. Theo Nott is something like "a weedy boy Hermione said was called Theo Nott" in the library--after that he's just Theo Nott. Though like I said I don't think it's relevent here anyway, because these people wouldn't need to be identified by name anyway. "Slytherins who left" or whatever is even easier than the descriptions we do get in the sentence. -m From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Jan 4 03:58:06 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 20:58:06 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ some War and peace spoiler References: Message-ID: <00ae01c84e86$040611f0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180318 > Alla: > Specifically what I am disagreeing with is that she cannot say that > her version is official, you know? Shelley: This is how I see it: Five years from now, 10 years from now, 50 years from now, people will be picking up the HP books and read them for themselves. They might not even know about the interviews that Rowling gave after the 7th book was finished. Thus, when they read about Dumbledore in particular, they will read him untainted by that interview. They will have a pure experience with the books, as they are written. There are some of us now that are saying that her interviews are so full of contradictions, and post-7th regrets that she didn't write this-and-that that it doesn't even line up with what she wrote, so much so that we are much happier rejecting the interview information and go back to our pure experience with the books. I was happy with Rowling when I was book-only purist. I'm majorly unhappy with Rowling's interviews post DH. Call me wrong for wanting to be a book-only purist, but that's the only way I can live with this series. > Alla: > I disagree that she is not entitled to talk about the characters as > much as she wants to. I think she earned that right. Oh, she has the right to have interviews all she wants. And, she has the right to make herself look like an ass too- none of us control what comes out of her mouth- to make herself look better, or to make herself look worse. Excuse some of us if we say plainly that she was better keeping her mouth shut than to go on the way she has. > BUT I think that JKR's version is official and she has a right to say it. Shelley: The only part that is official is what's in print. The dispute here is what part of print do we consider official- the 7 books series, or the 7 book series and her web page, or the 7 book series with her web page AND all the interviews that she's given where she contracticts herself with other interviews and even with some of the 7 book material??? Huh? Which is the "official" part? You may live by every word that proceedth out of the mouth of Rowling, but not I. Her works are no different than any other art work. Once it's hung in a gallery, you can't stand over it 24/7 to tell people what you intended to paint, and how to look at that canvas. You must step aside and trust that artwork now has a life on it's own WITHOUT you. She sold her books, ya know? And we bought them, you know? They are out of her hands, out of her control. Rowling is still hovering over her creation, telling people how to view it. That's my criticism of Rowling- that eventually she has to stop being that doting, protective mama. (thanks va32h for sharing that word picture- yes, I can date this son by myself and you, mom, please step aside! I have a book to enjoy without you needing to be there!) I still maintain that if she wants a gay Dumbledore, she's got to write one. Not merely imagine that he always was. Not demanding after the fact that she intended to paint one. I can imagine that I painted some great world class painting, but really it's up to other people to see my painting and decide for themselves if it's really that good. I can read for myself and see that DD isn't gay in the series, thank you very much. My DD from the series isn't anything like that. If some want to take her interview and reimagine their DD that's in their heads, that's ok, but that was never the same as Rowling writing a gay DD from Book 1. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Jan 4 04:11:55 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 21:11:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. References: Message-ID: <00c901c84e87$f26cfec0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180319 > va32h > I agree that the mirror in OoTP was tragic. But if we are limiting > ourselves to just re-doing DH...I had Harry repair his mirror, then > find the other mirror at 12GP. He manages to get it to Ginny, and > thus is able to keep tabs on all that is going on at Hogwarts. > > I realize that Harry needed to *not* be at Hogwarts during DH, but I > also really missed seeing those characters and knowing what happened > to them. Between the mirror, careful consulting of the Marauder's > Map, and communication with Kreacher and Dobby (since of course Harry > can summon Kreacher anywhere at any time) I have Harry (and thus the > reader) being much more aware of the situation at Hogwarts. Shelley: I love this idea!!!. The mirror could serve the role that the Daily Prophet did- when Hermione read it out loud, it gave the students inside of Hogwarts key information about what was going on outside of Hogwarts. The mirror could have brought us in touch with Luna, Ginny, Neville and some of our other beloved characters all throughout the book, even though Harry was in a tent in the middle of nowhere. And, restoring the mirror would have brought a nod to Sirius's memory, that it finally got used for good- plotting the end of Voldemort. DH was so shallow in that it failed to wrap up certain elements. Restoring the mirror and using it this was would have been a better ending for that element than merely having it reflect Albus's brother's eye. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 04:13:37 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 04:13:37 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ some War and peace spoiler In-Reply-To: <00ae01c84e86$040611f0$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180320 Shelley: I'm majorly unhappy > with Rowling's interviews post DH. Call me wrong for wanting to be a > book-only purist, but that's the only way I can live with this series. Alla: Please cite where I said that anybody who wants to disregard interviews is wrong. Alla: > > BUT I think that JKR's version is official and she has a right to say it. > > Shelley: > The only part that is official is what's in print. Huh? Which is the > "official" part? You may live by every word that proceedth out of the mouth > of Rowling, but not I. Alla: Please cite where I said that I live by every word that comes of Rowling's mouth. In fact I specifically said that I disagree with some of her statements, but I certainly agree with many others. And the official part to me is the part where she invented the characters - by virtue of that I grant her the right to say anything she pleases whether her readers like it or not. You have a right to dislike it, I have a right to do the exact opposite. Shelley: She sold her books, ya know? > And we bought them, you know? Alla: No, really? I bought them too, you know? Shelley; They are out of her hands, out of her control. Alla: We disagree over the degree of how much they are out of her control. Shelley: > Rowling is still hovering over her creation, telling people how to view it. > That's my criticism of Rowling- that eventually she has to stop being that > doting, protective mama. Alla: And this is a valid criticism of course. Just the one I disagree with. Shelley: > I still maintain that if she wants a gay Dumbledore, she's got to write one. > Not merely imagine that he always was. Alla: So tell me are you upset about any other statement in her interviews besides Dumbledore being gay? It seems to be the only interview you keep mentioning. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Jan 4 04:40:04 2008 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 04:40:04 -0000 Subject: Wizarding history (WAS Re: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180321 > > Katie wrote: > > > > In the spirit of new threads, however, a question I have always > > had: How do you guys think the very first wizards realized they > > were different and how do you think the wizarding community was > > formed? I mean, are we talking prehistoric, here? Or do we think > > this is a more recent evolutionary change? Kemper now: Well... the very first wizard was a witch. A Parseltongue. She lived with a Muggle who was ridiculously boring. She wished he was more well read, but there were no books around. Like Snape, she was a wiz at creating spells. The witch magicked a charm called the phemagyni and cast it on the Muggle, who then took a bite from the pome of gnaritas. Kemper From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 06:04:22 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:04:22 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control/ some War and peace spoiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180322 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > It is my opinion of course, but like if Tolstoy was still alive, > I would never say that by rewriting the novel he dared to > interfere with my prince Andrey, whom I own in my head (?) > and that is why he is not allowed to kill him off or something. Well, Alla, if ever JKR rewrites the DH and we'll get DD who is really gay and the Slytherins who really return to battle, I'll accept it without complaining, I promise :-). Meanwhile, with only the interviews, it is a bit confusing to me. Imagine this: after publishing "War and Peace" Lev Tolstoy gives an interview where he claims that your beloved Prince Andrey was really gay! That's why he was so unhappy with his wife, that's why he was so reluctant to marry Natasha right away and wanted to delay the wedding. He even died because he lost his will to live, being forced to suppress his true nature ;-(. And if you never guessed it, you are just not perceptive enough :-). You'd say Tolstoy would have had (is this the right tense?) the right to do it, and I agree with you, but I still think it would have been unfair to make the reader (me :-) completely rethink a character that he loves after the book is over! It's not that I would think less of Andrey, maybe I would even have more compassion for him, but I would have to look at him differently - his actions, his words, everything! And I already have the image of him in my head, so it becomes really confusing - I can't completely let go of the image that I had before, and I'm not ready to fully accept his new image, because I can't even see it in the book! That's how I feel about DD now - confused. I lost his image, he is like a blur to me. I agree with you that JKR has the right to say whatever she wants about her books, and I still like her, of course, and the books - I'm just trying to explain why some readers are upset about some things she said. I thought that Prince Andrey example will get to you - after all, when I was a schoolgirl, I also used to looove him ... :-). zanooda From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 06:45:55 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:45:55 -0000 Subject: Rowling interview transcript In-Reply-To: <477D832A.1040004@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180323 > Irene: > I just don't get it, how it sits together for her - Slytherins are not > all bad, and yet someone who becomes a better person, stops being > suitable for Slytherin. zgirnius: I think the source of the confusion is the purpose the house serves in the book. On the one hand, I believe in Rowling's imagination of the Potterverse, it is merely one of four houses in Hogwarts, in which roughly 1/4 of the wizard population of the British Isles is/was/will be educated. Thus, it is far from true that they are all bad, or that there is no one good ever in the house, despite some examples of very bad apples coming fron that house. It is also the house from which the major villain of her story comes, and also young Harry's greatest antagonists in the school setting, his rival Draco and the teacher he hates, Snape. Since the story is centered about Harry, this means most of the Slytherins we meet are in Voldemort's gang or in Draco's, but see above, the quarter of the merchants in Hogsmeade, or Healers at St. Mungo's, or what have you, who are Slytherins, are invisible (and irrelevant) to the readers. As a result, there is what I consider to be a fan misconception, that Slytherin is the 'bad house'. I don't think Rowling envisions it so, I think the impression was created naturally out of the function in the plot/story for the house. And if a fan has this assumption in his/her mind when asking a question, what is Rowling supposed to do, other than repeat that Slytherins are not all bad? Based on her answer, she apparently thinks Snape proved himself, as an adult, a better fit for Gryffindor. The canon quality which he is said (by no less an authority than Adult!Harry) to exemplify above all other characters, is courage, not moral rectitude. And courage happens to be *the* Gryffindor trait. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Jan 4 07:43:20 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 23:43:20 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Unforgettable DH moments, was List reactions, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0801032343l6bd46d8btd5950788672b665f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180324 Unforgetable DH moments? Oh...how about Dudley actually telling Harry that he doesn't think he's a waste of space? Or Aberforth's patronus--I mean, that it was a goat was the least of surprises, but that whole scene is hilarious if you think about it. And I like flawed Albus Dumbledore too. No wonder he always wanted to see the best in everyone. He knew what the worst was from personal experience and that change truly was possible, but also that temptation is always there. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Jan 4 08:06:38 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 00:06:38 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Respect (was: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0801040006s709d161epc01ae42a18f49278@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180325 Eggplant: And who would be the second most insulted person this group has aimed their sights on? Well that would be me. And my crime? Being just about the only one willing to publicly defend JKR. I said before I think this demonstrates an appalling smallness of spirit, and I stand by that statement. Lynda: You haven't been the only one, though. There have been more than a few times that I've defended JKR when the most "vocal" members of this list have decided they don't like what she's written. That they aren't happy with DH is fine with me. I still like it, and the series, but its the sudden change of heart concerning the author that's befuddling to me. It seems to me that its still the story she wrote, and she had to share it in her way. with her words and ideas, not mine, nor anyone else's. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kat7555 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 06:18:08 2008 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:18:08 -0000 Subject: Which scene we hated more or loved WAS: Re: Why not Actually Re-Write? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180326 > va32h: > I liked and disliked that scene. Harry as a willing sacrifice? > Fine, good, touching etc. His parents rooting him on? Turned > my stomach. > I think James, Sirius and Lily could have a tad less enthusiasm > for sending Harry to his death, is all I'm saying. Kathy: I think James and Lily already knew Harry would survive. I believe when Dumbledore died James and Lily demanded to know what would happen to their son. Dumbledore told them about Harry being a Horcrux and that he would have to be killed in order to repair his soul. They don't say anything about Harry reuniting with them in the afterlife because they know Harry will go on to adulthood. Kathy Kulesza From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Jan 4 08:24:21 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:24:21 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ some War and peace spoiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180327 LOTS OF SNIPS...please read the original posts... > Shelley: > > I still maintain that if she wants a gay Dumbledore, she's > > got to write one. Not merely imagine that he always was. > Alla: > So tell me are you upset about any other statement in her > interviews besides Dumbledore being gay? It seems to be the > only interview you keep mentioning. Wow... It is so very fascinating how many different viewpoints there are, and how diverse perceptions there are... I was just reading the transcript of Ms. Rowling's podcast with mugglenet. I am of the opinion that Ms. Rowling's statements in interviews are "canon" in the same way the books are canon. Here's why... if Ms. Rowling decided to write a short story that included the facts that she had disclosed in her interviews... that would obviously be canon. She could choose to do that at any time. I'm very, very sympathetic to those who feel that it is now their universe and it should go as they would like.. that their interpretations of the book are superior to the author, and that they should be in control, rather than Ms. Rowling. I do wonder WHICH interpretation should be the valid one? Which of the individual fans should have the authority to decide what is what? If some of Ms. Rowling's interview statements are contradictory.. well... let's remember the problem with James and Lily coming out in the wrong order in the Goblet of Fire... it would be an error that she would need to clarify and connect. However, others have decided that only that which can be found in the published books is canon. I absolutely respect your decision to do so. We can agree to disagree. I sense that I am in the minority in several ways right now on this list. First, I think Ms. Rowling is an incredible, outstanding, amazing individual who is not trying to make (more) money, get (more) publicity.. she has plenty and maybe too much focus and publicity. She has been quoted about not liking the constant focus on herself and her family. I find it terribly upsetting to hear her attacked and her character and intentions defamed. I don't think she is a perfect individual (who is?) but I admire her for her writings, her viewpoints, her family life, and her philanthropic work. It's amazing and great that she is giving so much money to charity, and working to promote so much charitable giving. Second, I love all the books. I love the Deathly Hallows. That makes me in a minority, yes? I don't like everything in it. I'm happy to concede that Ms. Rowling hasn't done everything right. But I must be in the smallest minority of all -- I even love the epilogue! I love happy endings..and I am so happy for Harry that he has the family he has always dreamed of and that they are doing well... Third, (and I am obviously NOT in the majority HERE), I think it's great that Professor Dumbledore is gay. I do think that a few posts that are focusing on how awful/dreadful/evil Dumbledore is are influenced by knowing that he is gay... But of course I could be wrong about that.... it does seem that there have been a lot more posts focused on how DD is evil and how Ms. Rowling should be quiet since she talked about his being in love with Gellert Grindelvald. I'm wondering if those who have a problem with Professor Dumbledore being gay have a problem with anyone being gay? Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Jan 4 09:00:44 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:00:44 -0000 Subject: Respect (was: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180328 > Betsy Hp: > Again, you've ignored all the positive posts. True, *I've* > not been kind to JKR. (I finished DH and said, "My God. She's > evil!"; I've since decided she's less evil and more misguided.) > And there've been others who agree that DH was not a swimming > success nor JKR a particularly bright bulb. But we by no means > make up the entire list. > Betsy, I want to suggest that when you say that JKR is evil, that you are really attacking her...saying that she is not a bright bulb is a comment that would not be tolerated on this list by the list elves if you said it about me. I am in an incredible minority who thinks that Ms. Rowling should be treated as well as anyone on this list. The List Elves do not agree, so I am suppressed.... oh well... Evil? You really think Ms. Rowling is evil? In my own humble opinion that seems to be a little over the edge..... Snip> > As for me? I figure JKR's a big girl. I'm betting she can > handle little old me calling her to task on an internet group. > Looking at her bank balance might help. ;) Betsy, this is an example of how I think Ms. Rowling is not being treated with the same respect that anyone on this list is entitled to... When you say " Looking at her bank balance might help..."..To me, this means that she is a rich jerk who is entitled to any vitriol that anyone might dish out? No? Susan From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Jan 4 12:01:12 2008 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:01:12 -0000 Subject: Respect (was: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180329 Susan: > Betsy, I want to suggest that when you say that JKR is evil, that > you are really attacking her...saying that she is not a bright > bulb is a comment that would not be tolerated on this list by > the list elves if you said it about me. I am in an incredible > minority who thinks that Ms. Rowling should be treated as well > as anyone on this list. The List Elves do not agree, so I am > suppressed.... oh well... Ceridwen: I'm not Betsy and so can't answer for her, but the difference between you and JKR to me is that Rowling is a public figure and as such is subject to more public criticism than private individuals, while you are a private individual. Rowling has made the choice to be visible and recognizeable; you haven't. Speaking on a Yahoo! group with others of similar interests does not equate to being known by glance throughout the world, doing interviews at places like Radio City Music Hall and on the world-renown BBC. Rowling knows the price of fame and went for it anyway; you are merely here as another fan discussing the books and have not opened yourself to criticism based solely on that. Susan: > Evil? You really think Ms. Rowling is evil? In my own humble > opinion that seems to be a little over the edge..... BetsyHp: > Snip> > > As for me? I figure JKR's a big girl. I'm betting she can > > handle little old me calling her to task on an internet group. > > Looking at her bank balance might help. ;) Susan: > Betsy, this is an example of how I think Ms. Rowling is not being > treated with the same respect that anyone on this list is entitled > to... > > When you say " Looking at her bank balance might help..."..To me, > this means that she is a rich jerk who is entitled to any vitriol > that anyone might dish out? No? Ceridwen: Since the discussion is centering around Rowling's interviews, I'll just jump in here to discuss both this and my thoughts about the post- series interviews. I had an equally disturbed reaction to Rowling after finishing DH. For six books, the Unforgivable Curses were just plain wrong. It was even enshrined in both canon and wizarding law that using an Unforgivable was a sure ticket to Azkaban. Yet Harry uses one, makes a smart-mouthed quip, and... nothing. No heart searching afterwards, no repercussions from the legal or Divine. The camping scenes were boring, not something I would expect from this series. There was no resolution on-page between Our Hero and His Adversaries other than Voldemort. While Voldemort was the biggest baddie, I thought the tensions between Harry and both Draco and Snape would be briefly explored and resolution settled. The message I came away with was that the Creatrix favored one of her creations above all others, and that, in the end, there is no moral compass as people are calling it. Evil is a word I'd use, but not in the traditional Judeo- Christian way. Evil in the sense that, in my opinion, she lost sight of the story, the morals she had been expounding throughout, and in what is supposedly a children's series, does not make it plain that either there are some instances where the usually bad thing is fine, or that the usual bad thing can lead to misgivings even if it is fine in context. The interviews. *sigh* I wish she'd move on. You've focused on the outing of Dumbledore, as it is what a lot of people point to when expressing their dissatisfaction. It's probably the biggest post- series reveal, but it isn't the only one. It is the most memorable. I never got that in the text. By the time she mentioned this, which would have slightly changed my perception of why DD was so reluctant to confront GG, I was already wishing she would get a hobby or join an author's survival group. It was slightly amusing at first to see her go from bad-mouthing Snape to saying her favorite would see to it that he got a portrait in the head's office, but it got very old very fast. I got so sick of Harry Stu during these interviews that he has colored my entire view of the character of Harry James. Rowling doesn't have to continue these interviews. I know I don't have to read them, and I don't, but they're brought up in the oddest contexts so that I see certain quotes even though I am definitely not looking for them. If I want verbal tap-dances, I have kids who can more than adequately fulfill that desire. (slight rant) And that's another thing. Why do people in the WW not move on to other relationships once one has ended? Snape pined for Lily, Dumbledore pined for Grindelwald, neither was able to move on from his adolescent crush. I totally bought the whole deep friendship angle of DD and GG, and it did make sense to me that someone, in this case DD, would be reluctant to confront a dear old friend. The story worked without the reveal, though the reveal would have deepened the DD character and the whole DD/GG subplot for me in the book. Why not put it in? And Snape/Lily. *eyeroll* Going on SWM from OotP, I wouldn't have thought the two of them even knew each other outside of class. There was no foreshadowing, in my opinion, of feelings on either side. Instead of being a Madonna stand-in, Lily ended the series as a shallow wench for me. Rowling and I obviously have a difference of opinion on what a hero should be! I thought it might be revealed that they knew each other outside of school, since that would be a twist and Rowling likes twists, but best friends? She never convinced me. I could go on and on, but I'll leave it. It's too early. /rant I know I left out a lot, but I hope this helps to sort out my reactions. Ceridwen. From jferer at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 12:07:27 2008 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:07:27 -0000 Subject: Unforgettable DH moments, was List reactions, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: <2795713f0801032343l6bd46d8btd5950788672b665f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180330 Lynda: "Unforgetable DH moments? Oh...how about Dudley actually telling Harry that he doesn't think he's a waste of space? Or Aberforth's patronus--I mean, that it was a goat was the least of surprises, but that whole scene is hilarious if you think about it." Not big moments, but good ones. I was pleased by Dudley but unconvinced. Not JKR's fault, but I never believed in the idea of one big transforming experience that turns a life around (the Dementor attack). I'm the kind of guy that suspects Ebenezer Scrooge went back to being a miser in a year or two. Of course, all we know for sure is that Dudley changed his attitude towards Harry and that Harry was gracious enough to accept it. Lynda: "And I like flawed Albus Dumbledore too. No wonder he always wanted to see the best in everyone. He knew what the worst was from personal experience and that change truly was possible, but also that temptation is always there." JKR is very good at giving us these real, flawed, very human characters who nevertheless accomplish great things. It's an admirable thing to me that Dumbledore saw his flaws and worked around them as well as he did. It's easy for perfect people to achieve greatness, but much more interesting when ordinary humans do. My most unforgettable moment will always be the forest. Jim Ferer From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Jan 4 14:18:20 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 07:18:20 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ some War and peace spoiler References: Message-ID: <007a01c84edc$aa084720$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180331 > Shelley: > > I'm majorly unhappy >> with Rowling's interviews post DH. Call me wrong for wanting to be > a >> book-only purist, but that's the only way I can live with this > series. > > Alla: > > Please cite where I said that anybody who wants to disregard > interviews is wrong. Please don't do this. My post was long, and not really intended to be a direct comment to you, but a discussion in general. Both you and I know that you never said quote "anybody who wants to disregard interviews is wrong", so you know full well I can't site you on this. We are talking about Rowling's rights vs reader's rights. That Rowling has the right to control how her characters are percieved. My assertion is that her rights end on that end the moment she published the books, and they were distributed to the world to read. That's when the characters became the readers' to have and to imagine only from the words written. Some may be interested in also learning Rowling's views on how she imagined them to be, but she should also respect those that do not, especially when she keeps changing her mind in her interviews, making them to be rather worthless. > > Alla: >> > BUT I think that JKR's version is official and she has a right to say >> > it. >> >> Shelley: >> The only part that is official is what's in print. > Huh? Which is the >> "official" part? You may live by every word that proceedth out of > the mouth of Rowling, but not I. > > Alla: > Please cite where I said that I live by every word that comes of > Rowling's mouth. Shelley: See the last comment. Alla: > And the official part to me is the part where she invented the > characters - by virtue of that I grant her the right to say anything > she pleases whether her readers like it or not. Shelley: You keep talking about invention, but let's be honest- she's an author. The characters exist only on page. When it was taken to movies, yes they now exist on film. But outside of that, they are just an idea. Any rights she has to those characters only exist when those characters are applied to some medium- printed page, film, dolls or collectible items, play or live action recreation, but she doesn't own the movie that plays in people's heads when they read the series. I already agreed with you that she has the right to SAY anything she wants, even if it contradicts her written story, even if it makes people respect her less. She's a wonderful author. I'm just saying she's a terrible on-the-spot interviewee. > Shelley: >> I still maintain that if she wants a gay Dumbledore, she's got to write >> one. >> Not merely imagine that he always was. > > Alla: > > So tell me are you upset about any other statement in her interviews > besides Dumbledore being gay? It seems to be the only interview you > keep mentioning. Shelley: The gay Dumbledore is the most obvious one, of course- the major goof. But I did mention others- the changing of her mind of who Luna would marry, and the past one about saying that someone in the books would start to use magic later in life. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Jan 4 14:35:05 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 07:35:05 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Respect (was: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? References: <2795713f0801040006s709d161epc01ae42a18f49278@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <008501c84edf$00a620a0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180332 > Lynda: > That they aren't happy with DH > is fine with me. I still like it, and the series, but its the sudden > change > of heart concerning the author that's befuddling to me. It seems to me > that > its still the story she wrote, and she had to share it in her way. with > her > words and ideas, not mine, nor anyone else's. Shelley: I talked before about the polarizing of topics, and of views of certain people. I hear it again in this post- "sudden change of heart concerning the author". When we will we be able to discuss Rowling's good and bad traits without being told that we are changing heart or being accused of criticizing her, or being polarized as hating Rowling? You know, I can like her as an author and point out her faults at the same time. She wrote a wonderful 6 books with only minor errors in time and moons and dates and room placement, but nothing real earth shattering. DH, by contrast, seems to contain errors that are more substantial in that it doesn't appear to have been edited at all, and certainly she could have been more careful with it. Then she gives interviews that make a lot of people question why she would say what she did, and cannot we talk about the most recent stuff (which may have more negative conversations simply because the latest works have more errors to discuss) without being accused of hating Rowling? I would like to have a conversation where people aren't trying to ascribe motives to us (you're trying to smear Rowling, or you're trying to drag down her good name), so that there isn't this false constraint on the list that every conversation thread must be positive or you will get jumped on by the people who still love Rowling and feel all of her errors are just minor things to be ignored. I wish people would get the idea that we can talk about her errors and still love her too. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Jan 4 15:00:03 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:00:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ some War and peace spoiler References: Message-ID: <00b601c84ee2$7d6a40f0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180333 From: "susanmcgee48176" > I'm very, very sympathetic to those who feel that it is now > their universe and it should go as they would like.. that > their interpretations of the book are superior to the author, > and that they should be in control, rather than Ms. Rowling. Shelley: I think you may have misunderstood the intention of some, and so I will explain for myself what I feel. I have never felt that my interpretations of the book are superior to the author. I merely assert that they are INDEPENDENT. And that years from now, people will pick up the books and read them for themselves, and form opinions on the characters within, independently from all the interviews and other stuff that we are privy to have at this time and date. Unless, the future publishings of the series will also contain all relevant interviews to tell people what they missed that Rowling never included in original writing of the books. > I do wonder WHICH interpretation should be the valid one? I think you also misunderstand this too- it's not a matter of validity- it's a matter of which material do you hold in your mind when you think of a certain character that was written? Someone else clearly said it in their post- their view of Dumbledore was fixed, solid, clear and sure before the interviews. Now her view is confused, blurred and unsure. Zanooda said "That's how I feel about DD now - confused. I lost his image, he is like a blur to me." Others see Dumbledore's actions as now clearer because of that interview, becuase now they imagine a different picture. It's not a matter of validity which person is correct, but it is significant that they are different based on which material you use to make your final judgement- the books alone, or the books and interviews. > I find it terribly upsetting to hear her attacked and her > character and intentions defamed. Maybe I missed reading posts, given my off and on relationship with time and abiltity to contribute to this list. I haven't read the attacks that you mention. Maybe that's clouding my perspective, or clouding the prospective of others who read my posts and assume that I'm also part of that crowd. > I do think that a few posts that are focusing on how > awful/dreadful/evil Dumbledore is are influenced by > knowing that he is gay... I must be really missing some posts. Could you point to some that mentioned that DD was awful or dreadful or evil at all, aside from the gay issue, or because of the gay issue? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 4 15:04:19 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:04:19 -0000 Subject: List reactions, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180334 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: Pippin: > I am not going to forget Snape crying his eyes out over that letter > and tearing the photograph in two, nor clinging to Harry's robes as he > tries to hang on to life long enough to complete his mission. I am not > going to forget Harry reaching out to pat Dumbledore's arm and glad to > find that he could. And I am not going to forget Harry telling Albus > Severus that it doesn't matter where the Hat puts him. > > Anyone else want to talk about unforgettable DH moments? > Pippin Geoff: For me the chapters leading on from "The Forest Again" were among the best. But a point which was totally unforgettable was that symbolic moment when "a red-gold glow burst suddenly across the enchanted sky above them as an edge of dazzling sun appeared over the sill of the nearest window", the moment when "Harry... yelled his best hope to the heavens" when Voldemort made his final throw and lost. (from DH, "The Flaw in the Plan", p.595 UK edition) No pun intended, but that was sheer magic for me. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 4 15:34:18 2008 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:34:18 -0000 Subject: Respect (was: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180335 Susan McGee: > > Betsy, I want to suggest that when you say that JKR is evil, that > > you are really attacking her...saying that she is not a bright > > bulb is a comment that would not be tolerated on this list by > > the list elves if you said it about me. I am in an incredible > > minority who thinks that Ms. Rowling should be treated as well > > as anyone on this list. The List Elves do not agree, so I am > > suppressed.... oh well... Ceridwen: > I'm not Betsy and so can't answer for her, but the difference > between you and JKR to me is that Rowling is a public figure and as > such is subject to more public criticism than private individuals, > while you are a private individual. Rowling has made the choice to > be visible and recognizeable; you haven't. SSSusan: Ceridwen has captured the difference here re: the list elves and list policy. I've been a member of the group since mid-2003 and a list elf since early 2005, and I think the moderators have been pretty consistent in this: while it is *not* okay to disparage a list member, a public figure *is* fair game for criticism, even if it's our series' creatrix. What I believe is different from mid-2007 onward is that there has definitely been *more* criticism being leveled at JKR, whether that pertains to what she did with her series, what she didn't do with her series, what she seems to be saying about her own values, or what she's revealing in interviews. So what might *feel* like a change in list policy (because of the amount of criticism or negative response to JKR) is not actually a change in policy but a change in, I don't know how best to phrase it, amount of criticism... degree of criticism... level of intensity of criticism. The truth is there have always been members of HPfGU who were critical of JKR and/or aspects of her story. That there are now many more members who are so speaks simply, I would submit, to the tenor of the list membership and the fandom at the moment. Okay, well, maybe I should qualify that "and the fandom" a bit -- I don't know that children who are HP fans have begun to criticize JKR significantly more, and I don't think it's true that what I'd call "casual" adult fans have begun to do so either. But, let's admit it, we at HPfGU are a different animal by and large, are we not? :) We're adult fans who tend to be serious fans, who have invested many years into discussion, many hours into theorizing and debating, and who know the details of the books inside & out (much moreso than the typical child or less "serious" adult fan). I would maintain that *this* is in large part precisely what has led to the degree and level of criticism we have seen expressed about JKR/the series at HPfGU. I know that when I speak with friends of mine who are fans but not *as* into HP as this group's members tend to be, and when I read posts at another adult group I belong to whose members are mostly less *deeply* into the books, then the level of criticism is much less. In fact, I often encounter puzzlement from these people when I explain what kinds of criticisms have been expressed here. But we invested a lot; therefore, if the series was a disappointment, there was a lot to be upset about. Or so I see it that way. And so I would again argue that the expectations from the mods haven't changed -- it's always been clear that criticism is appropriate, that JKR isn't the same as a list member in terms of what might be said about her, and that members who disagree with a negative remark have every right to respond in an attempt to rebut. That's how we play here. :) As for me personally, I'm one who has always reacted quite positively to JKR, to Harry and to the overall series... even after the end. :) It's true that it has been hard at times to visit the list and see that there have been a *lot* of peeved, upset, angry and disappointed HPfGUers, but I've always known that I could present my counter views and positions as well -- it's up to ME to do that, not mods to come down on posters who were dissatisfied, simply on the grounds that they were dissatisfied or criticising JKR! What occurred upthread is exactly what I'm talking about. Betsy feels quite strongly the things she does about the series and about JKR. Susan McGee disagrees with that position, and each has the right to express her opinion. I happen to be in Susan's camp on the issue of calling JKR "evil:" I don't like it; I think it's too strong; I just don't agree with it in the slightest. Yet Betsy does. So it's my place to say what I think about that if it matters that much to me (and I've just done so :)), but Betsy and any other member can tell us what s/he feels about JKR & the books as long as nice, polite, opinion-language-laced posts with canon support are made. That's what we do here. :) Okay, enough of that. On to an issue Ceridwen raised.... Ceridwen: > The interviews. *sigh* I wish she'd move on. You've focused on > the outing of Dumbledore, as it is what a lot of people point to > when expressing their dissatisfaction. It's probably the biggest > post-series reveal, but it isn't the only one. It is the most > memorable. I never got that in the text. By the time she > mentioned this, which would have slightly changed my perception of > why DD was so reluctant to confront GG, I was already wishing she > would get a hobby or join an author's survival group. > Rowling doesn't have to continue these interviews. I know I don't > have to read them, and I don't, but they're brought up in the > oddest contexts so that I see certain quotes even though I am > definitely not looking for them. SSSusan: Here's where I've been most disappointed with JKR as well -- the post- series interviews. I wasn't at all unhappy to discover that JKR had "always seen DD as gay." Not at all. I was disappointed she didn't see fit to reveal that in the text somehow, nice and matter-of-factly (and I saw the same place as Ceridwen mentioned, where it would've made the decision not to go after GG for a long time more *understandable* if we'd known), but I wasn't disappointed at the news itself. But what has made me unhappy is something else. I'm not very good at expressing it, but I'll give it a stab. In the past, before the series was over, I almost always enjoyed jkrowling.com updates and dashed off to read new interviews whenever I learned of them. I was happy to learn that Mark Evans's name meant nothing re: Lily, was unhappy to learn that the Droobles gum wrappers only ever were that, but in general, I enjoyed the upates and hints and clarifications she provided. What I'm NOT enjoying now is the way *some* of the information is coming out of the interviews. It's the almost *flipness* with which she is answering some questions that has me upset. Let me use the "missing 24 hours" as an example. This, from the recent podcast (12/23/07): >> I'm gonna have to really go back through notes and either admit that I lost twenty four hours or I don't know, hurriedly come up with some back story to fill in. (SU laughs) Either way, you either get to be right, or you get more story. So you can't complain. << I always like that JKR really, really, really knew the background of all these characters & events, so that she could respond quickly with an "Oh, no, that's not the case, because...." or "Well, actually, I'm not going to be able to fit in Dean's backstory, but I can tell you that...." She KNEW the details and so she could respond seriously or she could say truthfully, "Well, I'm afraid that just isn't something that plays out in the story" (Mark Evans, Alice's Droobles wrappers, the precise fates of Harry's grandparents, etc.), because she KNEW. I liked that she seemed to respect the questions as being sincere, she tended to respond to them with respect for those who'd studied, noted and/or theorized. But what doesn't feel right to me is the kind of response we got about the 24 hours... a sort of "Oh, you know, I might have made a mistake, and if I did, maybe I'll need to make something up quick, heh heh heh." THAT feels flip and, frankly, a little disrespectful. An admission of "I messed up my maths again!" wouldn't feel that way, but saying, essentially, "Eh, I'll make something up real quick so you all can be happy" doesn't. If you didn't think of it already, Jo, then don't make something up NOW. Some of us thought a lot about that and what might have been going on during the 24 hours. If JKR **had thought that out but just elected not to include it,** then I'd want to know what The Answer was. But if she didn't think it through, then she doesn't really have The Answer, does she? And that's what I'm not liking about the interviews. I wish she'd stick to revealing things she knows but didn't elect to include in canon and admit things she might have muffed or forgotten, and NOT move into "Oh, maybe I'll make something up for that" after it's all over. That doesn't feel true to me, nor fair even. But that's just me. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 15:48:49 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:48:49 -0000 Subject: Respect / Unforgettable moments LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180336 > Geoff: > For me the chapters leading on from "The Forest Again" were among the > best. But a point which was totally unforgettable was that symbolic > moment when "a red-gold glow burst suddenly across the enchanted > sky above them as an edge of dazzling sun appeared over the sill of the > nearest window", the moment when "Harry... yelled his best hope to the > heavens" when Voldemort made his final throw and lost. > (from DH, "The Flaw in the Plan", p.595 UK edition) > > No pun intended, but that was sheer magic for me. > Alla: Yes absolutely loved it and loved the forest. Hmmm, what else I loved the best in DH? I actually really liked the scene of Ron fighting his demons to destroy the horcrux. I really liked the scene between Harry and Ginny - that gave me hope that sometimes JKR can do romantic moments, LOL. I loved Andromeda and Ted tiny moments. And I absolutely loved Regulus' story. Just a few to mention for now. Alla: > > Please cite where I said that anybody who wants to disregard > interviews is wrong. Shelley: Please don't do this. My post was long, and not really intended to be a direct comment to you, but a discussion in general. Both you and I know that you never said quote "anybody who wants to disregard interviews is wrong", so you know full well I can't site you on this. Alla: Actually, if I am being assigned the words I never said I will be doing this. It happened to me couple of times too ? I was thinking about thread in general and replied to one person. The thing is I did NOT say it and it read to me as if you assigned those words to me. > Alla: > Please cite where I said that I live by every word that comes of > Rowling's mouth. Shelley: See the last comment. Alla: Yeah, see mine as well. NOWHERE in my post I said that I live by every word from JKR's mouth. Therefore I do not wish to be assigned the words that I did not say. Shelley: > I would like to have a conversation where people aren't trying to ascribe > motives to us (you're trying to smear Rowling, or you're trying to drag down > her good name), so that there isn't this false constraint on the list that > every conversation thread must be positive or you will get jumped on by the > people who still love Rowling and feel all of her errors are just minor > things to be ignored. I wish people would get the idea that we can talk > about her errors and still love her too. Alla: I absolutely agree with you - motives should not be assigned to anybody, but do you not see that you are doing the same thing? "will get jumped on by the people who still love Rowling and feel all of her errors are just minor things to be ignored"? You just generalized massive group of people, just as Eggplant made massive generalizations about the other side of the argument. Here is the deal. I love Rowling's writing, but I certainly do not feel that all of her faults must be ignored. In fact, while I massively disagree with your position, I think you have a right to say it. BUT the opposite is true as well. You have a right to critique Rowling as much as you want to - she is a public figure, etc. But please do not expect that your critiques will go unchallenged necessarily. I am using you as generic you here. Just as you have a right to say anything negative about her, I have a right to challenge it. I have a right to challenge every single sentence if I wish to do so. And I have a right to do so without being told that I am jumping on people ( I know it was a generic comment but since I am defending her, I think it can apply to me) I do not jump on anybody and I do not go to defend her every single time. I argue, I debate, discuss, etc. I do not consider her to be the greatest writer ever lived certainly. I can name plenty of writers better than her. But I think she is a good writer and not bad interviewer and yeah, so far there is not much in the criticism of her here that I agree with. As I said I do not do it every single time, but when I choose to do so, I will do so as much as I feel like it. It goes both ways, you know? And what does the fact that you still love the six books has to do with anything? I totally understand that position. I challenge your critique of Rowling NOT the fact that you still love the six books. I do know you can do both. And we can be friends and disagree too of course. Just look at Ceridwen's recent rant ( hi dearest). There is really not much besides JKR's being a public figure and therefore open to criticism in her rant that I agree with . And she is one of my very best buddies on list and I hope always will be. Here is one. Ceridwen: I had an equally disturbed reaction to Rowling after finishing DH. For six books, the Unforgivable Curses were just plain wrong. It was even enshrined in both canon and wizarding law that using an Unforgivable was a sure ticket to Azkaban. Yet Harry uses one, makes a smart-mouthed quip, and... nothing. No heart searching afterwards, no repercussions from the legal or Divine. Alla: Yeah, not one repercussion, but also not much praise don't you think? Left for reader to decide, as Pippin said heeeee. Ceridwen: And Snape/Lily. *eyeroll* Going on SWM from OotP, I wouldn't have thought the two of them even knew each other outside of class. There was no foreshadowing, in my opinion, of feelings on either side. Alla: Heee, remember our prior DH chats? Remember? I thought before DH that it is definitely coming. I thought it was very nicely foreshadowed and I think I came to realize it very late in the game. I mean to me Snape's silence about Lily spoke a thousand words. zanooda: > Well, Alla, if ever JKR rewrites the DH and we'll get DD who is > really gay and the Slytherins who really return to battle, I'll > accept it without complaining, I promise :-). Meanwhile, with only > the interviews, it is a bit confusing to me. Alla: But this is all in the degrees to me, I certainly wish that she would have been explicitly said that Dumbledore is gay in the books and if she wished to say it explicitly that Slytherins returned to battle. Oh, oh and I certainly get the confusion part ( I find being UPSET part very hard to comprehend, but it is not applicable to you) to a degree. Because to me as I said there are hints of ambiguity in the books that can be interpreted as Slytherins' return and DD being gay makes a lot of sense to me as well. Zanooda: > Imagine this: after publishing "War and Peace" Lev Tolstoy gives an > interview where he claims that your beloved Prince Andrey was really > gay! Alla: Yes, so? I mean it in the nicest possible way. My only reply would have been ? yes, so? > You'd say Tolstoy would have had (is this the right tense?) the right > to do it, and I agree with you, but I still think it would have been > unfair to make the reader (me :-) completely rethink a character that > he loves after the book is over! Alla: AHA. Now we are getting somewhere. Keeping in mind that I would prefer JKR to say explicitly in the books that DD is gay, how is it different from Tolstoy killing Andrey in the second draft? I mean, you definitely have to rethink him, you know if you just went from first to second draft, being new reader, I mean, if only because he does not give him that much religion understanding? What is the difference besides the fact that this is an interview? If you are saying that the only difference is that it IS an interview, then there is nothing much left to say for me, really. I understand this position, truly ? that it is not canon, that it could be forgotten, etc. I understand it. But say she puts it in encyclopedia, and then it becomes her written word, so how is it different from what Tolstoy did? Zanooda: It's not that I would think less of > Andrey, maybe I would even have more compassion for him, but I would > have to look at him differently - his actions, his words, everything! > And I already have the image of him in my head, so it becomes really > confusing - I can't completely let go of the image that I had before, > and I'm not ready to fully accept his new image, because I can't even > see it in the book! Alla: Well, but isn't it the case every time author makes change in the character? I mean it seems to me that what you are saying that it would have been no problem for you had it been in the book, no? And another thing I guess while I can see how Andrey's motivations could be looked in major different light, since he seems to be attracted to women, etc and his love to Natasha is one of the major storylines, I really do not see how it all holds water for DD. We did not read anything about his love life for six books. Nothing whatsoever. The only companion he has a close relationship with is Fawkes, who is male too . Now we know he is gay. I guess to me it is easy enough to not be confused, even though as I said I get confusion to a degree. Zanooda: I thought that Prince Andrey example will > get to you - after all, when I was a schoolgirl, I also used to > looove him ... :-). Alla: Oh LOL. I was a school girl looooong time ago but I still adore him. He is an example of character how I would want to be loved, not by the kind of love Snape had for Lily LOL SSSusan: So it's my place to say what I think about that if it matters that much to me (and I've just done so :)), but Betsy and any other member can tell us what s/he feels about JKR & the books as long as nice, polite, opinion-language-laced posts with canon support are made. That's what we do here. :) Alla: Yes. Me too. SSSusan: And that's what I'm not liking about the interviews. I wish she'd stick to revealing things she knows but didn't elect to include in canon and admit things she might have muffed or forgotten, and NOT move into "Oh, maybe I'll make something up for that" after it's all over. That doesn't feel true to me, nor fair even. Alla: Sure, I wish she would not do that part as well. JMO, Alla From va32h at comcast.net Fri Jan 4 15:56:04 2008 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:56:04 -0000 Subject: Respect (was: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180337 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: What I'm NOT enjoying now is the way *some* of the information is coming out of the interviews. It's the almost *flipness* with which she is answering some questions that has me upset. Let me use the "missing 24 hours" as an example. This, from the recent podcast (12/23/07): >> I'm gonna have to really go back through notes and either admit that I lost twenty four hours or I don't know, hurriedly come up with some back story to fill in. (SU laughs) Either way, you either get to be right, or you get more story. So you can't complain. << va32h: Yes, that's absolutely how I feel, but you've expressed it much more succinctly than I could. In all of Rowlings post-DH interviews, there have been questions that she was clearly answering on the fly. And sometimes that doesn't matter (the Hufflepuff Common Room description) but sometimes it does. Ron works for Weasely Wizard Wheezes - no he's an Auror - no he works for WWW. Many of us readers have invested a lot of time thinking about these characters; who they are, what makes them happy, what they want out of life. For Rowling to toss out these ideas - seeming to show a fraction of that thought - that just stinks, IMO. And her comment regarding the missing 24 hours should really be the final nail in the coffin of "it's all been planned out in precise detail from day one." Obviously it hasn't. Some things were planned, some things were made up as she went along. And there is nothing wrong with making it up as you go along, but be honest about it JKR. Just tell us that wasn't something you'd thought about. Don't make something up off the top of your head that is out of character or doesn't fit what you've already written. One of the reasons I choose not to accept interviews as canon is because there does not seem to be sufficient thought behind the answers. I'd just as soon not know about the missing 24 hours than have to incorporate as fact something she "hurriedly made up". va32h From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Jan 4 15:56:33 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:56:33 -0000 Subject: Rowling interview transcript In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180338 > zgirnius: > It is also the house from which the major villain of her story comes, > and also young Harry's greatest antagonists in the school setting, > his rival Draco and the teacher he hates, Snape. Since the story is > centered about Harry, this means most of the Slytherins we meet are > in Voldemort's gang or in Draco's, but see above, the quarter of the > merchants in Hogsmeade, or Healers at St. Mungo's, or what have you, > who are Slytherins, are invisible (and irrelevant) to the readers. > > As a result, there is what I consider to be a fan misconception, that > Slytherin is the 'bad house'. I don't think Rowling envisions it so, > I think the impression was created naturally out of the function in > the plot/story for the house. And if a fan has this assumption in > his/her mind when asking a question, what is Rowling supposed to do, > other than repeat that Slytherins are not all bad? Magpie: I just think it's a little much at this point to say that we have the "fan misconception" that Slytherin is the bad house when it's consistently portrayed as such even in interviews. When Rowling says "they're not all bad" she's admitting they are of course the bad house. She's expressed horror (I believe that was her word) at the idea of people identifying with Slytherin. If anything it seems like she's spent far more time in interviews correcting the fan misconception that they *aren't* the bad house, or that the characters who come from there should be liked. These statements about them not being all bad is in no way saying they're not "the bad house"--that's already a given in her statement. No, this one I lay squarely at Rowling's door. I didn't go into the book with any preconceptions about Slytherin--in fact, I seemed to see its antagonists in a more positive light than she does! But they're still relatively the bad house, as is validated again and again. Including in the epilogue where despite the house being happily "diluted" (weakened) according to the author, it still has the rep as the house of dark magic and Harry is assuring his son by telling him--once again--about that all-important moment that Harry showed he "wasn't Tom Riddle" by choosing not to be in Slytherin. Meanwhile "Slytherin" has been used as a shorthand for all sorts of less savoury things throughout canon--and that shorthand wasn't unfair in the slightest. If JKR was confused as to why people though Slytherin was the bad house maybe she should have stopped saying it was the bad house over and over and over in the books and only pulling back a little when challenged with the obvious conclusion: why don't they just get rid of this house or kill all these people? It's not like she's not seeing the logic to the question. "They're not all bad" isn't a compliment. It's like Slytherin's line to Harry about the world not being made up of good guys and Death Eaters. Sure people other than Death Eaters can be bad. And Death Eaters don't have to be "all bad" any more than Slytherins do--they can have good qualities. Doesn't make Death Eaters not "the bad guys" or clearly a bad group of people. The only person who's "all bad" is Voldemort but Slytherin is damned with faint praise the same way it's damned by the horrible behavior of its members that appear onscreen, even those who eventually rise above their disadvantages to the point where one wonder about the better person they might have been if they were Sorted into Gryffindor. -m From kjones at telus.net Fri Jan 4 16:47:22 2008 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:47:22 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Respect In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477E631A.6090402@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 180339 > Betsy Hp: > Again, you've ignored all the positive posts. True, *I've* > not been kind to JKR. (I finished DH and said, "My God. She's > evil!"; I've since decided she's less evil and more misguided.) > And there've been others who agree that DH was not a swimming > success nor JKR a particularly bright bulb. But we by no means > make up the entire list. > KJ writes: I think what bothers me is that throughout the books, the characters grew in age, in thought, in moral fibre, and in magical strength. In the last book, that didn't seem to happen. We watched Hermione grow from a child who would do anything to succeed, or gain approval to one who seemed to go nowhere at the end. We didn't see her being used the same way in the last book. We saw Harry, the epitome of good in the entire series, using Unforgiveables in the last book. Why? He was out of control in HBP so it was understandable, but not in DH. There is no explanation for it. Only Neville grew. That was his best moment. We are expected to believe that since Snape loved Lily because she was his only friend, that there was no conflict for him over the years in setting out to destroy the only people who took him into their ranks and treated him with respect. We are expected to believe that a person like this character would have remained loyal to only Lily. To me, this just has a false ring to it. Whether Dumbledore is gay or not makes no difference, which is why I object to it. If it had been used to show us that the decisions he made with regard to GG had affected his life, I could understand, but as it is, it's pointless. Any information about a character belongs in the book, it should be clear, and there should be a point to it other than what we fill in as readers. A writer is doing a job. It should be consistent, meaningful, and well considered. This last book was not. I don't hate JKR, nobody does. That would be pointless. I just feel as though this last book seriously let us down as readers. KJ From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 17:47:38 2008 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:47:38 -0000 Subject: Respect (was: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180340 > SNIP very thoughtful comments > > I always like that JKR really, really, really knew the background > of all these characters & events, so that she could respond quickly > with an "Oh, no, that's not the case, because...." or "Well, > actually, I'm not going to be able to fit in Dean's backstory, but > I can tell you that...." She KNEW the details and so she could > respond seriously or she could say truthfully, "Well, I'm afraid > that just isn't something that plays out in the story" (Mark Evans, > Alice's Droobles wrappers, the precise fates of Harry's > grandparents, etc.), because she KNEW. > I liked that she seemed to respect the questions as being sincere, > she tended to respond to them with respect for those who'd studied, > noted and/or theorized. > > But what doesn't feel right to me is the kind of response we got > about the 24 hours... a sort of "Oh, you know, I might have made a > mistake, and if I did, maybe I'll need to make something up quick, > heh heh heh." THAT feels flip and, frankly, a little > disrespectful. An admission of "I messed up my maths again!" > wouldn't feel that way, but saying, essentially, "Eh, I'll make > something up real quick so you all can be happy" doesn't. > > If you didn't think of it already, Jo, then don't make something up > NOW. Some of us thought a lot about that and what might have been > going on during the 24 hours. If JKR **had thought that out but > just elected not to include it,** then I'd want to know what The > Answer was. But if she didn't think it through, then she doesn't > really have The Answer, does she? And that's what I'm not liking > about the interviews. I wish she'd stick to revealing things she > know but didn't elect to include in canon and admit things she > might have muffed or forgotten, and NOT move into "Oh, maybe I'll > make something up for that" after it's all over. That doesn't feel > true to me, nor fair even. > > But that's just me. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > Another example is her pairing up of characters after the book, and giving them children. Someone asked her if Neville got together with Luna, and she basically said that was a good idea. Then, we get the marriage of Luna to some Scalamander many years later, and the due production of two children (yay normalcy). And all I have to say is... why? Is this really the canon version of Luna's story, or just a flippant elaboration? Was she being coy with the original questioner post-DH, or had she just not conceived the story yet? Pre-DH, I understand that JKR was misleading in her interviews, but now I resent her baiting people with "this will be important" answers which turned out to be red herrings. Red herrings are one thing in the book, but in interviews? I say this as someone who was captured by her world and its possibilities, to the extent I devoted quite a lot of my time to thinking about them after OOTP. Even so, I started trying to disregard her interview comments after the publication of that book because they were somewhat mean-spirited and arrogant. (They only got worse after HBP, with anvil and delusional comments. I was never an uncritical member of the Cult of Rowling, but rather, was a critical reader of her books.) It was my choice to get so involved in the HP fandom, inspired by the potential of her work, but she did also keep my interest alive with hints of more to be revealed. The more turned out to be less for me. I am glad she thought DD was gay, but it was really irrelevant to the story (which worked with friendship for me) and, in any case, was not explicitly in the books, unless colorful clothes and love of knitting patterns means you are stereotypically gay. The gay DD revelation was just another interview tease, part of her schtick, of which I've grown very tired, personally. Frankly, she was asked if DD had ever been in love, and she didn't really answer that question, but came out with a quotable comment instead. I respect JKR's accomplishment, but became uneasy with it after book 6 and disappointed with it at the end. Why do I still talk about it? I still find the work interesting, if not admirable. There are other authors whose talent and moral viewpoints I respect more, but no similar communities for discussion. As for criticism, when JKR speaks thoughtfully and thoroughly about her work instead of issuing flippant remarks from a pedestal of superiority and smugness, then I will respect her more. JMO, lealess From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 17:48:44 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:48:44 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180341 Carol earlier: > > ("Seemed" is a clue that what Harry thinks he sees isn't necessarily accurate. Remember "They didn't see what they thought they saw," Sirius Black's description of his "murdering" the Muggles and Pettigrew? Remember the Hufflepuffs thinking they saw Harry egging the conjured snake on to Justin? Remember Harry seeing Snape "murder" Dumbledore and DD pleading for his life? > > Betsy Hp: > Yeah. I also remember the very clear cut, unambiguous reveals. Where is the big reveal showing us that the folks Harry thought were adults were actually fellow students as well? Carol responds: I agree that there's no clear-cut, unambiguous reveal, but we're never told exactly what happened in many other instances, either. The closest we get here is "Slytherin played its part" in the battle itself, which can't refer solely to Snape, whose loyalties and earlier actions Phineas knows but whose last act of giving Harry the key memories is known only to HRH, nor can it refer to Regulus, whose sacrifice he's unaware of. Nor does his exultant claim that "Slytherin played its part" seem justified simply because Slughorn joined in the battle, bringing a crowd of reinforcements whose identity Harry guesses in the midst of chaos. Both Phineas's remark and Harry's later attitude that it's okay for his son to be sorted into Slytherin make sense only if Slytherin students returned to the battle. The "big reveal" in DH focuses on Snape, who is still "the man he hated" as Harry watches him die, unable to recognize his own feelings other than shock at the way Snape died and the reason for his death (which, BTW, is a step toward the understanding and compassion he will later feel--at least he isn't feeling vengeful and vindicated as he watches Snape die). We get "The Prince's Tale," to which we don't see Harry reacting directly, other than identifying with the young Snape (and Tom Riddle!) as a fellow "lost boy" who felt at home at Hogwarts, because he's caught up in Snape's message that he, Harry, has to sacrifice himself (a message Snape could not have delivered if he'd been AK'd for openly opposing Voldemort). Harry's view of Snape, shared by the Order members and RH and the Hogwarts staff (except, apparently, Slughorn and Filch) and the DA, is shown to be mistaken. He publicly vindicates Snape, privately reveals all the details of his Pensieve visit to Ron and Hermione, and names his son Albus Severus. His perception is cleansed, as symbolized by the missing glasses in "King's Cross," which can only mean that he now sees clearly (except, of course, that he still needs them when he returns to the living world, his physical as opposed to symbolic myopia not having been magically cured). It's interesting, BTW, that Harry appears to be *near*-sighted whereas Trelawney is *far*-sighted (her spectacles magnify her eyes) since Harry sees most clearly those who are close to him (Ron, Hermione, the Weasleys) but doesn't see Snape accurately until his excursion into the Pensieve, and only gradually, from the Sectumsempra scene onward, comes to see Draco clearly. (In the RoR, he starts out thinking that Draco is as corrupted as Crabbe and really wants to hand him over to LV; in the end, he saves Draco and Goyle--Crabbe, of course, reaping what he has sown.) Trelawney, in contrast, is comically far-sighted; she sees the portents in the cards and the crystal ball but (usually) reads them incorrectly, or doesn't believe what she sees (she keeps shuffling and reshuffling the cards in HBP). At any rate, the examples I cited earlier show that misperception is, if not a theme, certainly a frequent motif in the HP books, with Snape as the key example throughout the books, highlighted with his own chapter ("The Prince's Tale") in DH and Harry's public vindication of the man against whom he's intended to exact revenge since the end of HBP. Note that HRH's impression that the detention Snape assigns to Neville, Ginny, and Luna (working with hagrid in the Forbidden Forest) is "cruel" is never corrected, either, but the reader is supposed to see the limitations of Harry's pov and read that detention as a clue to Snape's true character. Not everything has to be explained to a reader who can think and interpret for him or herself. Carol, quite aware that DH is flawed and conceding that the ending is rushed, but finding the key to her own interpretation in Harry (and Harry's glasses), with *Harry's* (not Ron's) attitude toward Slytherin (and Snape) in the Epilogue as the clincher From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 4 18:40:06 2008 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:40:06 -0000 Subject: Respect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180342 Carol Wrote: > ALL I'm asking is that JKR respect So JKR should respect even though you admit you have no respect for her. Interesting. > the right of her readers to interpret > the books consistently with what's on > the page throughout the series Carol what does that even mean? Even if JK Rowling is the most evil woman who ever lived how on Earth could she make her readers believe or do anything? Geoff Bannister > I am a List Elf Then it may interest you to know that I have received support for my views, but all of it has been off list. Why do you suppose that is, why didn't they send there comments to the group? The only reason I can think of is that they are afraid to go on record supporting Rowling in the current atmosphere, and it's not hard to see why. On more than one occasion I have been told by moderators that I was being too impolite to other posters for saying some pretty mild things; certainly I never said I lost all respect for them or the they were an example of the Peter Principle in action, but when somebody said that about Rowling there was not a word of protest by anyone except by me. Hey it's your group not mine and you can run it anyway you want, but if you don't change your policy might I humbly suggest you change the name from Harry Potter for Grownups to something a little more descriptive, like The Rowling Bashers and Harry Hating Mob. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 18:50:26 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:50:26 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180343 Alla wrote: > > Fast forward to Occlumency lessons - Harry feels pain, doesn't he? > > > > Do we ever find out if Snape had anything to do whatsoever with that pain? Do we ever find out if Harry had pain from the lesson, if he had pain at all or was it all in his mind? > > > > I mean I vehemently argued in the past that Snape could be deliberately opening his mind to Voldemort, but in light of all the information would he really do that? > > > > How exactly was this information corrected? > > Lealess responded: > I don't remember the information being corrected! This is possibly one of the things that JKR either felt was not important to the story or dropped the ball on, depending on the importance of the question to you. To my mind, she dropped a lot of balls in the end, to focus exclusively on Harry's travels in DH. There are a plethora of unanswered questions, things that will never be answered, until JKR comes out with something else that will hopefully be well-thought-out and consistent with earlier canon. > > I can think of even more reasons why the Occlumency lessons caused pain to Harry, but most of these explanations would be pure speculation with little foundation in the text, and imagining them does not make them canon. Carol responds: But Snape's opening Harry's mind to Voldemort isn't canon, either, despite Harry's and Ron's canonically *believing* it to be true. JKR provided sufficient information (the break-out from Azkaban revealed in the next day's Prophet, Harry's sensing that something LV has been looking forward to has just happened) to allow the perceptive reader to *infer* an alternate interpretation to Harry's pain following the first Occlumency lesson. (The pain was not caused not by the Occlumency lesson but by Voldemort's emotions on discovering the breakout from Azkaban; the timing is coincidental, like the pain in Harry's scar when Snape looks at him in SS/PS and when *Umbridge* touches him in OoP; the visions began after PP gave LV a rudimentary body and intensified after his resurrection, and the dream of Mr. Weasley, along with the dreams of the MoM, indicate that the scar link was intensifying *before* the first Occlumency lesson, which is supposed to provide a cure if Harry will only pay attention and apply them.) But, as both Alla and Lealess note, the narrator does not come right out and provide that alternate explanation, which we, as readers, must piece together for ourselves, nor does Harry ever concede that he was wrong in his view that the Occlumency lessons were opening him up to Voldemort. (For that matter, we never know whether Hermione's explanation of Sirius Black's behavior is accurate or not. JKR provides no alternative explanation, but characters are free to disagree with Hermione--and have done so rather vociferously.) My explanation here is not speculation but interpretation, based on putting the pieces together. Other readers, especially those who've reread OoP more recently, may find additional pieces or put together the pieces I've mentioned differently. Nevertheless, we have here a clear example of Harry misinterpreting what he perceives through his senses, which, unlike the pain in his scar in SS/PS or the "murder" of Dumbledore in HBP, is not cleared up later (neither is "Snape was going to Crucio him into insanity"; the reader has to pick up the clues that Harry missed). I'm sure there are other examples, but Alla has chosen a good one. As for unanswered questions, which is a different matter from uncorrected misperceptions by the pov character or false explanations by other characters ("not a single wizard went bad who wasn't from Slytherin," for example--the reader has to figure out that Hagrid is wrong; the characters never point out his mistake), the one I hoped would be answered was the two unidentified memories that Snape placed in the Pensieve. Now *there's* an example of the reader being forced to speculate. Were they among the memories that Harry saw in the Pensieve in "The Prince's Tale"? If so, which two were they? It might be fun to speculate on that question, with no one's speculation being more probable than anyone else's (so long as they're in character for DH Snape). Carol, hoping that others will think of unanswered questions on which we can still speculate From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 18:50:53 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:50:53 -0000 Subject: Respect (was: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180344 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Again, you've ignored all the positive posts. True, *I've* > > not been kind to JKR. (I finished DH and said, "My God. She's > > evil!"; I've since decided she's less evil and more misguided.) > > And there've been others who agree that DH was not a swimming > > success nor JKR a particularly bright bulb. But we by no means > > make up the entire list. > >>Susan: > Betsy, I want to suggest that when you say that JKR is evil, that > you are really attacking her...saying that she is not a bright > bulb is a comment that would not be tolerated on this list by > the list elves if you said it about me. Betsy Hp: I don't deny that I'm attacking JKR when I say such things. Nor do I deny that saying such things about a fellow list member would be unacceptable behavior. For me, the difference comes down to power. I could possibly bully a person off this list by calling them names. But, I cannot remove or quiet JKR's input into Potter-verse. She is more powerful than me. I'll also say that in attacking a fellow list member, I'm moving off message; I'm not talking about the Potter-verse. In attacking JKR (as an author) I *am* talking about Potter-verse. (In that vein, I suppose if I talked about JKR the person (wife, mother, etc.) I'd be moving to off-topic waters. Which would be a bad thing.) > >>Susan: > I am in an incredible minority who thinks that Ms. Rowling should > be treated as well as anyone on this list. The List Elves do not > agree, so I am suppressed.... oh well... Betsy Hp: Obviously you're *not* suppressed. Your point of view is out there for everyone to see and discuss. (The elves are actually pretty good about allowing messages slamming them and the way they run things. You know, for power-hungry despots. *joke!*) > >>Susan: > Evil? You really think Ms. Rowling is evil? In my own humble > opinion that seems to be a little over the edge..... Betsy Hp: Heh. You should have heard me when I put DH down for the first time. I told my husband it was like finding out your husband had been cheating on you. With a ten year old. (He was just *thrilled* with that analogy. ) Not just betrayed and made foolish, but also actively replused. A misjudgment of epic proportions. So yeah, I did think "evil". A huge part of that came from my buying into her world, really thinking she was going to pull it out in the end and have this beautiful, satisfying, and well thought out message. It was stunning and dismaying to be so very, very wrong. And it shook my personal opinion of myself as a critical thinker. (I took some solace in the realization that I'd been nervous about the series for a while, but still... I missed the boat so completely I wasn't only at the wrong pier on the wrong day, I was standing in the middle of a desert.) I've since gotten over the bitterness (I feel like anyway) and am now enjoying re-examining the series to see *why* I thought like I did, and what warning signs I missed along the way. But my reaction was a real one, and I think that makes it valid. (I can't see a casual reader feeling this strongly.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > As for me? I figure JKR's a big girl. I'm betting she can > > handle little old me calling her to task on an internet group. > > Looking at her bank balance might help. ;) > >>Susan: > Betsy, this is an example of how I think Ms. Rowling is not being > treated with the same respect that anyone on this list is entitled > to... > When you say " Looking at her bank balance might help..."..To me, > this means that she is a rich jerk who is entitled to any vitriol > that anyone might dish out? No? Betsy Hp: I was referencing her power (as made apparent by her wealth built on the popularity of her books). She *is* the creator. Katie Couric is not going to interview *me*. My expressions of dismay at what she created and why (and wondering about motivations, etc.) haven't made a dent in JKR's ability to express herself. Nor has my voice come even close to matching the power of hers. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 4 19:03:59 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:03:59 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180345 > > >>Carol: > > One of the themes of the books is that what appears to be true, > > including what Harry perceives to be true, isn't necessarily true. > > > > Betsy Hp: > See, and again, this is where discussions pile up. Because I > honestly don't think this was a theme at all. Harry was, for the > most part, right about everything. Rather than Harry learning that > his first instinct was probably wrong, he learns that his first > instinct is usually right. Only birds of his particular feather can > be full on trusted. Pippin: Huh? So, Harry was right about Snape, Fake!Moody, Scabbers, James, Sirius, the reason that he had a scar, what Dumbledore was like, do I have to go on? Sometimes his instincts are right on. Sometimes they aren't. Betsy: > Slytherins returning to the fight would have been a massive shock to > Harry because it would have shown an old, comfortable prejudice of > his to be wrong. *We never get that scene*. Pippin: Right. And yet Slytherins return to the school at some point, because they're clearly still part of Hogwarts in the epilogue. The novel doesn't say when they returned. Reasonable people have different theories. Doesn't that kind of *prove* that it's ambiguous? We don't see Harry getting that massive shock because we don't ever see him finding out they'd come back to the school at all, much less when. JKR doesn't show us Harry realizing he's prejudiced against Slytherins, because, IMO, she wants *us* to realize that. She wants us to be able to reach that conclusion independently. I agree that Rowling wants us to dislike Slytherins. But IMO, she wants us to realize that it's a prejudice, all by ourselves, not because she said so and not by making Harry feel bad about it. Because the truth that canon holds up for us, IMO, is that prejudice is like the Imperius curse: until you try to fight it, it *doesn't* feel bad. IMO, she's teaching us the way Harry learned about the Imperius, by putting us under the spell. You can't fight it unless you know how it feels. It feels lovely, doesn't it, not to think, just to believe what you're told? Unless, like Harry in Fake!Moody's class, you're listening to that little voice in the back of your head that says, "Why?" Why should I think Slytherins are cowards? Because Phineas said so? But he didn't say that, he said they were brave, but they would try to save their own skins first, if they had a choice. He doesn't say what kind of a choice he means. Voldemort would always try to save his own skin first rather than save someone else, because he believes there's nothing worse than death. But I think we learn in DH that he's not typical.. Because their banners weren't in the RoR? But that was only for DA members, and no Slytherins got invited to join. Because Draco ran away from Quirrelmort? Well, Harry should have run too, only he was overcome by his scar and had to be carried off by Firenze. Because none of them challenged Voldie single-handed, face to face? Few wizards have that kind of bravery, Gryffindor or not. And then there's that great big coward, Snape, only he turns out to be probably the bravest man Harry ever knew. So much for Harry always being right about everything. What Slytherins do we ever see run away and leave something they care about in peril? Only the ones in the Great Hall, apparently. But if the only reason we think they did that is because they're cowards, and there isn't any other evidence that they're cowards -- well, we're running in a circle, aren't we. You said in an earlier post that an epic shouldn't be ambiguous. But the epic part isn't ambiguous -- Voldemort fell just as decisively as Troy. The powers of all four Houses, united in Harry and united in battle, were matched against the powers of Slytherin alone. Pure epic. The culture hero wins because his culture works better. Hurrah. Whether you believe any Slytherins came back with Slughorn or not, it's clear that the WW has decided that McGonagall was wrong and Hogwarts is better off with Slytherins than without them. And please, when were Slytherins ever the designated victims of the WW? Are they slaves like the House Elves? Exiles like the Giants? Are there laws that they can't have jobs? Or wands? No. There's some social discrimination against Slytherins but the worst *official* discrimination we see is McGonagall's attempt to expel them, and that doesn't hold. So it doesn't work that Hogwarts just needs them back so they can pick on them. Yes, prejudice and dark magic are still going to be problems in the WW. They're not entirely defeated, and the good guys aren't entirely innocent of them. But does Homer give us an epic defeat for running off with someone else's wife? Are the Greeks so pure they would never do such a thing? Well hardly. Odysseus helps to defeat the Trojans and recover Helen, only to find some of his fellow Greeks are trying to steal Penelope from him. And yet, it's pretty clear from Homer over all that he thinks wife-stealing is bad. It's pretty clear in Rowling that she thinks prejudice is bad too. But Harry, decent as he is, is not a saint, and he often doesn't realize he's doing something bad until there's a consequence. *That's* the point of not punishing him, IMO -- to show that even a person as decent as Harry is not so noble that he always knows right from wrong. That doesn't mean there isn't any good and evil, it just means that we shouldn't expect it will always be easy to tell the difference. We don't talk about "dark science" but we could...teaching evolution is dark to some, others think we shouldn't be building bombs or hunting whales. People of good will don't agree on these things, and even when we do, there's that very human tendency to say torture is bad until we want to do it, whereupon it becomes aggressive interrogation. So, the Dark Arts are bad until someone want to use them, in which case they're DADA. Sometimes you do have to do things for the greater good, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. But there are consequences. The books aren't evil, IMO. But Rowling always warned us they'd be dark. This is a world where your choices can turn you into a monster so horrible, so repellent, that no decent person would care what happens to you. It may not be so easy as the innocent believe, and you can still choose differently next time -- until your choices run out. But it can happen. That's what little Albus is afraid of, and Harry more than most has reason to take such fears seriously. It's a nice sentiment that Harry would love his child no matter what he did, but Harry doesn't live in a world where that's possible. Anyway, he knows what comes of loving your kid so much you can't see anything wrong with him. It's not a world where you know what the good guys are going to do without the trouble of asking them. It's a world where *no one* knows what evil they can do until they try. And yet Harry, knowing all this, says it makes no difference to him if Albus becomes a Slytherin. He doesn't say, like Dumbledore, that Snape was so brave he could have been a Gryffindor. He says a Slytherin was brave, just like Dumbledore said that Cedric, who had the highest qualities of Hufflepuff House, was brave. The hat invites us to think that there never was a brave wizard that didn't come out of Gryffindor, but like other assumptions, that one was shown to be false. Pippin From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 19:09:01 2008 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:09:01 -0000 Subject: Rowling interview transcript In-Reply-To: <477D832A.1040004@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180346 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, IreneMikhlin wrote: > So, we can't delude ourselves that it was just old sociopath Dumbledore > talking. Nope, it's the whole authorial intent: he was a bad child, so > the Slytherin was the right place for him, but he outgrew it later. > Mighty white of you, Severus. > > And yet in the next answer she repeats - "they are not all bad, and, > well, far from it." > > I just don't get it, how it sits together for her - Slytherins are not > all bad, and yet someone who becomes a better person, stops being > suitable for Slytherin. > > Irene > lizzyben: I also liked this part: "SU: We have to ask this, or we'll get yelled at: Draco Malfoy. (JKR: Yeah?) did he graduate, and who did he marry? It wasn't Pansy right? Or was it? JKR: No! God, it wasn't Pansy Parkinson! I loath that girl. (JN and su laugh) I don't love Draco but I really dislike her. She's every girl who ever teased me at school, she's the anti-Hermione. I loathe her. Yes, sorry, sidetracked there by my latent bitterness " LOL, she sounds like Snape talking about the Marauders! This comment also sheds light on that moment when the entire school aims their wands at Pansy Parkinson before she's summarily tossed out of Hogwarts. People speculated about the meaning of that moment, whether it was about the dangers of mob violence, the tarring an entire group for the actions of one person, or even about Judas betraying Jesus. It wasn't any of that; it was JKR getting revenge on the mean girl from high school. Vengence is sweet, as Snape would say. And that might be personally satisfying for her, but not for readers at large who don't know that real-life model. JKR doesn't give us good reason to *loathe* and hate Pansy Parkinson throughout the series, so we don't share her antipathy, and can't share in her sense of righteous punishment. Basically I think that the Slytherins are everyone JKR couldn't stand in real life. So of course they're awful people, and of course they should be tossed out of school (or ideally society at large.) And in JKR's wish-fullfillment fantasy, they get the treatment they deserve. Of course it's *possible* for the mean girl from high school to become a good mother later on, or possible that the mean teacher might turn out to be a good boss, etc. and you realize that you perhaps Sorted them too soon. But it's not likely. She does pull back from that in interviews when confronted with the possible implications of such a viewpoint, but IMO that's more about spinning things for fans or interviewers rather than reflecting her real standpoint. lizzyben From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 4 19:58:17 2008 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:58:17 -0000 Subject: Respect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180348 Carol Wrote: > > ALL I'm asking is that JKR respect > > the right of her readers to interpret > > the books consistently with what's on > > the page throughout the series Eggplant: > Carol what does that even mean? Even if JK Rowling is the most evil > woman who ever lived how on Earth could she make her readers believe > or do anything? SSSusan: I think several people have expressed what they mean by feeling JKR is saying too much in interviews or not fully respecting readers in some of the things she's stating. I *adore* the world JKR has created, am in awe of her talent & creativity, and yet I can say that I've been a little disappointed at some of the things she's chosen to say recently. In fact, I did so just a bit ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180335 Is that somehow supposed to be mutually exclusive -- that I can be annoyed by something *and* still love and admire the books & author? Geoff Bannister > > I am a List Elf Eggplant: > Then it may interest you to know that I have received support for my > views, but all of it has been off list. Why do you suppose that is, > why didn't they send there comments to the group? The only reason I > can think of is that they are afraid to go on record supporting > Rowling in the current atmosphere, and it's not hard to see why. SSSusan: I don't quite understand the assumption that it is fear keeping folks from posting to the whole group. How about the fact that an "I support you" post would be OT? I've written hundreds of offlists to people over the years, telling them I agree or loved what they said, and I've done so offlist precisely because posting *here* doesn't add to canon discussion. Eggplant: > Hey it's your group not mine and you can run it anyway you want, but > if you don't change your policy might I humbly suggest you change > the name from Harry Potter for Grownups to something a little more > descriptive, like The Rowling Bashers and Harry Hating Mob. SSSusan: I just don't get this either. Are there some folks who are really anti-JKR 'round here? Yup. Are there some folks who are critiquing the work while still generally liking the series? Yup. Are there some folks who are enthusiastic supporters of JKR and who love Harry? Yes!! I know I've gotten out my old D'oH Shield* at HPfGU on more than one occasion since DH. I've expressed the things I appreciate and enjoy about the series. Why is allowing posts which contain criticism and expressions of disappointment so awful? Why do they make the group "Rowling Bashers and a "Harry Hating Mob?" Why do you think the rest of what's being posted is somehow negated by some posts which express dissatisfaction or a loss of respect for the author? I should probably note here that members who would like to discuss list policy or list administration should do so at our sister list, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/. This post, in fact, might have been better suited for that list. :) All are welcome there! Siriusly Snapey Susan, proud wearer of her Defender of Harry [D'oH] Shield and totally unafraid to post to HPfGU From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 20:24:06 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:24:06 -0000 Subject: Rowling interview transcript In-Reply-To: <477D832A.1040004@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180349 Irene wrote: > > The whole text is available here: > > http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/1/2/pottercast-131-j-k-rowling-interview-transcript > > I just want to comment on one bit: > > -------------------- > SU: You know, Snape is so amazing, was he truly meant to be in Slytherin, Snape? > > JKR: Yes, God, yes, definitely, at the time that he was sorted. I believe what Dumbledore believes when he says to Snape in the very last book, "Sometimes I think we sort too soon." To judge someone at the age of eleven, to judge them, to set their future course so young seems to me to be a very harsh thing to do. And it doesn't take into account the fact that we do change and evolve. A lot of people are at forty what they were at eleven, having said that, so I think Sorting Hat is shrewd, but Snape does redeem himself and (SU: Yeah.) it fails to take that into account. > ---------------------- Irene again: > So, we can't delude ourselves that it was just old sociopath Dumbledore talking. Nope, it's the whole authorial intent: he was a bad child, so the Slytherin was the right place for him, but he outgrew it later. Mighty white of you, Severus. > > And yet in the next answer she repeats - "they are not all bad, and, well, far from it." > > I just don't get it, how it sits together for her - Slytherins are not all bad, and yet someone who becomes a better person, stops being suitable for Slytherin. > Carol adds: You snipped this part, which I think is important for the Epilogue: 'But then again, you could turn that on his head and say, "But maybe, with these people being sorted into Slytherin, someone who has the capacity to change themselves might also have the capacity to change Slytherin."' I suppose we could apply that to Snape, if he had lived, but JKR precluded that possibility by killing him (yes, I know. We don't see his body brought to the Great Hall, so she *could* resurrect him. . . ." I agree, however, that she's not being consistent either within the interview comment or with the depiction of Snape in the book. (I found little Sev an extremely sympathetic character, in marked contrast to James.) Also, she says in that interview that "Slughorn came galloping back with the Slytherins," which is what she thinks she wrote or intended to write, meaning that Harry's fleeting impression that the crowd consisted of townspeople and parents of the students who stayed to fight must be, as I've argued, his mistaken impression. The question is, are interviews canon? Can we accept the parts that match our own interpretations and reject the rest? I still think that what matters is what's on the pages of the books themselves, which we're free to interpret, and I still don't trust her off-the-cuff comments, which are only what she's thinking at that second, not carefully thought-out statements like those we can still hope for in the encyclopedia (which I fear may still contradict the books themselves given that they sometimes contradict each other). If I may be "disrespectful" for the moment, JKR comes across to me as rather muddle-headed in her interviews (as if she's speaking off the top of her head to friends, forgetting that her statements will be part of the public record), and it would probably be an act of courtesy not to hold her to them. Carol, wondering what JKR thinks would have placed little Severus in Slytherin besides his own delusion that it was the House for "brains" but not at all sure that I want to hear the answer From dazz_arlonsy at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 16:03:05 2008 From: dazz_arlonsy at yahoo.com (Dazz Arlonsy) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:03:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Best Quotes of Deatlhly Hallows Message-ID: <351194.16490.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180350 OK, I was just thinking I've got to post this one. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows ?Skeeter?s book contains less fact than a Chocolate frog card.? ?Are you out of your mind? A plot to get this house? Are you actually as stupid as you look?? ?Just in case you?ve forgotten, I?ve already got a house, my godfather left me one. So why would I want this one? All the happy memories?? ?Dudley, for the first time in your life, you?re talking sense.? ?I don?t think you?re a waste of space.? ?Blimey, Dudley. Did the dementors blow a different personality into you?? ?Take care, Big D.? ?Don?t you want to take a last look at the place? We?ll never be here again. Don?t you want to remember all the good times?? ?Well, none of us really fancy it, Harry. Imagine if something went wrong and we were stuck as specky, scrawny gits forever.? ?Ooh, you look much tastier than Crabbe and Goyle, Harry.? ?Wow?we?re identical!? ?Bill, don?t look at me?I?m ?ideous.? ?I knew Ginny was lying about that that tattoo.? ?Harry, your eyesight really is awful.? ?Can?t you even tell us apart when we?re Harry?? ?No?HEDWIG!? ?I won?t blast people out of my way just because they?re there. That?s Voldemort?s job.? ?I?ll prove who I am, Kingsley, after I?ve seen my son, now back off if you know what?s good for you!? ?Saintlike. You see . . .. I?m holy. Holey, Fred, geddit?? ?Pathetic. Pathetic! With the whole wide world of ear-related humor before you, you go for holey?? ?We?ve got to trust each other. I trust all of you, I don?t think anyone in this room would ever sell me to Voldemort.? ?Yeah, ?ear, ?ear.? ?Harry, he?s taking over the Ministry and the newspapers and half the Wizarding world! Don?t let him inside your head too!? ?We must decide ?ow you will be disguised,?Arry. For ze wedding. Of course, none of our guests are Death Eaters, but we cannot guarantee zat zey will not let something slip after zey ?aev ?ad champagne.? ?I don?t like your methods, Minister.? ?When I get married, I won?t be bothering with any of this nonsense. You can all wear what you like, and I?ll put a full Body Bind Curse on Mum until it?s all over.? ?Not so fast, Your Holeyness.? ?The Ministry has fallen. Scrimgeour is dead. They are coming.? ?Perhaps just one more, Master Harry, for luck?? ?Ron, no?please?come back, come back!? ?Ron, stab it, STAB IT!? ?After you left, she cried for a week. Probably longer, only she didn?t want me to see. There were loads of nights when we never even spoke to each other.? ?She?s like my sister. I love her like a sister and I reckon she feels the same way about me. It?s always been like that, I thought you knew.? ?You?complete?arse?Ronald?Weasley!? ?I?d tell him we?re all with him in spirit. And I?d tell him to follow his instincts, which are good and nearly always right.? ?May I just add that while we here at Potterwatch applaud Hagrid?s spirit, we would urge even the most devoted of Harry?s supporters against following Hagrid?s lead. ?Support Harry Potter? parties are unwise in the present climate.? ?I?m not being ?Rodent,? no way, I told you I wanted to be ?Rapier?!? ?As our listeners will know, unless they?ve taken refuge at the bottom of a garden pond or somewhere similar, You-Know-Who?s strategy of remaining in the shadows is creating a nice little climate of panic. Mind you, if all the alleged sightings of him are genuine, we must have a good nineteen You-Know-Whos running around the place.? ?Things are bad enough without inventing stuff as well. For instance, this new idea that You-Know-Who can kill people with a single glance from his eyes. That?s a basilisk, listeners. One simple test: Check whether the thing that?s glaring at you has got legs. If it has, it?s safe to look into its eyes, although if it really is You-Know-Who, that?s still likely to be the last thing you ever do.? ?Point is, people, don?t get lulled into a false sense of security, thinking he?s out of the country. Maybe he is, maybe he isn?t, but the fact remains he can move faster than Severus Snape confronted with shampoo when he wants to, so don?t count on him being a long way away if you?re planning to take any risks.? ?Help us! We?re in the cellar of Malfoy Manor, help us!? ?You?re going to kill me? After I saved your life? You owe me, Wormtail!? ?Dobby has no master! Dobby is a free elf, and Dobby has come to save Harry Potter and his friends!? ?Thank you so much Dobby for rescuing me from that cellar. It?s so unfair that you had to die when you were so good and brave. I?ll always remember what you did for us. I hope you?re happy now.? ?It?s a boy! We?ve named him Ted, after Dora?s father!? ?To Teddy Remus Lupin, a great wizard in the making!? ?I think he looks like Dora, but she thinks he is like me. Not much hair. It looked black when he was born, but I swear it?s turned ginger in the hour since. Probably blond by the time I get back.? ?Dawlish is still in St. Mungo?s and Gran?s on the run. She sent me a letter telling me she was proud of me, that I?m my parents? son, and to keep it up.? ?Aberforth?s getting a bit annoyed. He wants a kip, and his bar?s turned into a railway station.? ?You don?t have to do everything alone, Harry.? ?Why would Harry Potter try to get inside Ravenclaw Tower? Potter belongs in my House!? ?I shall expect you and the Slytherins in the Great hall in twenty minutes, also, if you wish to leave with your students, we shall not stop you. But if any of you attempt to sabotage our resistance or take up arms against us within this castle, then, Horace, we duel to kill.? ?Now go and do something constructive! Find Peeves!? ?Hogwarts is threatened! May the boundaries, protect us, do your duty to our school!? ?So??ow eez leetle Teddy?? ?What made you see sense, Perce?? ?Braggarts and rogues, dogs and scoundrels, drive them out, Harry Potter, see them off!? ?Oi! There?s a war going on here!? ?IF WE DIE FOR THEM, I?LL KILL YOU, HARRY!? ?Hello, Minister! Did I mention I?m resigning?? ?You?re joking, Perce! You actually are joking, Perce....? ?No?no?no! No! Fred! No!? ?Ron, we?re the only ones who can end it! Please?Ron?we need the snake, we?ve got to kill the snake!? ?And that?s the second time we?ve saved your life tonight, you two?faced bastard!? ?Look. . . at. . . me. . . . ? ?Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living, and above all, those who live without love.? ?Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?? ?Is Draco alive? Is he in the castle?? ?BANE! Happy now, are yeh, that yeh didn? fight, yeh cowardly bunch o? nags? Are yeh happy Harry Potter?s?d-dead...?? ?I?ll join you when hell freezes over.? ?HARRY! HARRY?WHERE?S HARRY?? ?Fight! Fight! Fight for my Master, defender of the house elves! Fight the Dark Lord, in the name of brave Regulus! Fight!? ?NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!? ?You?will?never?touch?our?children?again!? ?I don?t want anyone else to try to help. It?s got to be like this. It?s got to be me.? ?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.? ?Oooh, look, a Blibbering Humdinger!? ?We did it, we bashed them, wee Potter?s the one. And Voldy?s gone moldy, so now let?s have fun!? ?That wand?s more trouble than it?s worth. And quite honestly, I?ve had enough trouble for a lifetime.? ?Hermione didn?t believe I could pass a Muggle driving test, did you? She thought I?d have to Confund the examiner.? ?If you?re not in Gryffindor, we?ll disinherit you. But no pressure.? ?So that?s little Scorpius. Make sure you beat him in every test, Rosie. Thank God you inherited your mother?s brains.? ?Granddad Weasley would never forgive you if you married a pureblood.? ?Albus Severus, you were named for two headmasters of Hogwarts. One of them was a Slytherin and he was probably the bravest man I ever knew.? ~Dazz From muellem at bc.edu Fri Jan 4 21:34:24 2008 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:34:24 -0000 Subject: Best Quotes of Deatlhly Hallows In-Reply-To: <351194.16490.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180351 > Dazz wrote: > > OK, I was just thinking I've got to post this one. > > Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > colebiancardi: but, but you forgot my favorite bit: DD has just told Snape that he must kill him. "Would you like me to do it now? ....Or would you like a few moments to compose an epitaph?" From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 4 21:53:26 2008 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:53:26 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rowling interview transcript In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477EAAD6.3050403@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180352 Carol wrote: > > The question is, are interviews canon? Can we accept the parts that > match our own interpretations and reject the rest? I still think that > what matters is what's on the pages of the books themselves, which > we're free to interpret, and I still don't trust her off-the-cuff > comments, which are only what she's thinking at that second, not > carefully thought-out statements like those we can still hope for in > the encyclopedia (which I fear may still contradict the books > themselves given that they sometimes contradict each other). > The thing is, after book 7 I'm not so sure how well thought-out is the material in the books themselves. > > Carol, wondering what JKR thinks would have placed little Severus in > Slytherin besides his own delusion that it was the House for "brains" > but not at all sure that I want to hear the answer > She didn't put a lot of thought into his motivations, I'm afraid. Again, I know it's only interview, but she'd said something completely ridiculous in response to why he'd joined DE - something like he thought if he becomes a really powerful wizard, it would impress Lily. Duh. Or maybe the "brains" bit alone would be enough to condemn him. JRK does not have a lot of respect for people who chase knowledge. Hermione renounces Ravenclaw, does her soliloquy in Book 1 finale, and still JKR feels the need to point out in the interviews that Hermione's saving grace is that her heart is bigger than her brain. Irene From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 4 22:46:20 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:46:20 -0000 Subject: Rowling interview transcript In-Reply-To: <477EAAD6.3050403@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180353 > > Carol, wondering what JKR thinks would have placed little Severus in > > Slytherin besides his own delusion that it was the House for "brains" > > but not at all sure that I want to hear the answer Pippin: He had a strong preference for Slytherin, and as we know, the Hat takes your preference into account. If the Hat had known how brave Severus would become, it might have argued, or argued harder, for Gryffindor, IMO. But the Hat has no talent for divination that we know of. Irene: > She didn't put a lot of thought into his motivations, I'm afraid. Again, > I know it's only interview, but she'd said something completely > ridiculous in response to why he'd joined DE - something like he thought > if he becomes a really powerful wizard, it would impress Lily. Duh. Pippin: Why is that ridiculous? Is it unusual for someone from an abusive, violent background to think that only powerful people are loved? I don't think Snape understood till Dumbledore made that remark about being sorted too soon that Lily could have loved him for his courage. *That's* why he looked stricken in my reading, not because he was agreeing that Gryffindor would have been a better fit. And Lily did have a touch of the bad boy thing going -- she was being attracted to Bully!James despite herself. Of course if Snape had known that he was going to get caught up in pureblood mania and insult his dearest friend, let alone get involved in a plot to murder her, he'd have wanted to be in a different house, IMO, although as we know there were DE's from other houses, Pettigrew for sure. But nobody knew that was going to happen either. Nobody, except a few visionaries like Dumbledore, understood at first that Voldemort meant to take pureblood mania so far. Pippin From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 4 22:52:10 2008 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:52:10 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rowling interview transcript In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477EB89A.9050800@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180354 pippin_999 wrote: >>> Carol, wondering what JKR thinks would have placed little Severus in >>> Slytherin besides his own delusion that it was the House for "brains" >>> but not at all sure that I want to hear the answer > > Pippin: > He had a strong preference for Slytherin, and as we know, the Hat takes your > preference into account. If the Hat had known how brave Severus would become, > it might have argued, or argued harder, for Gryffindor, IMO. But the Hat has no talent > for divination that we know of. > > Irene: >> She didn't put a lot of thought into his motivations, I'm afraid. Again, >> I know it's only interview, but she'd said something completely >> ridiculous in response to why he'd joined DE - something like he thought >> if he becomes a really powerful wizard, it would impress Lily. Duh. > > Pippin: > Why is that ridiculous? Is it unusual for someone from an abusive, violent > background to think that only powerful people are loved? I still think that's a ridiculous motivation for Snape joining DE. It's in the books that Lily chided him repeatedly for his choice of friends with interest in Dark Arts. How is it possible that he thought becoming really good in Dark Arts is going to impress Lily? Irene From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 4 23:06:43 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:06:43 -0000 Subject: Respect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180355 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: Geoff; > > I am a List Elf Eggplant: > Then it may interest you to know that I have received support for my > views, but all of it has been off list. Why do you suppose that is, > why didn't they send there comments to the group? The only reason I > can think of is that they are afraid to go on record supporting > Rowling in the current atmosphere, and it's not hard to see why. On > more than one occasion I have been told by moderators that I was being > too impolite to other posters for saying some pretty mild things; > certainly I never said I lost all respect for them or the they were an > example of the Peter Principle in action, but when somebody said that > about Rowling there was not a word of protest by anyone except by me. Geoff: Mild is a subjective word. You have demanded murder and mayhem and disembowelling of characters you do not like for ages regardless of what other members think of them; OK, they're only fictional but it reveals a rather harsh side of **your** character. You have been scornful of those of us on the group who are Christians and disparaging about our faith and you still apparently refuse to consider views opposed to your own. You've even had a go at Tolkien before now... Now, my interpretation of your character may be completely wrong. You may be the gentlest of people who cultivates roses for a hobby and takes long invigorating country walks each day with a couple of dogs. But that is not how you project your persona - at least to me and I have also received off-list support from members of HPFGU. Just a little bit of agreement - and occasional humour - might lift your rating in the polls a bit. :-) Eggplant: > Hey it's your group not mine and you can run it anyway you want, but > if you don't change your policy might I humbly suggest you change the > name from Harry Potter for Grownups to something a little more > descriptive, like The Rowling Bashers and Harry Hating Mob. Geoff: Sorry, but it's not our group. It's everyone's group. The Elves are here to try to ensure that the group runs smoothly to the satisfaction of the majority, that the rules of engagement laid down are adhered to and that members don't insult others, climb on their own soapboxes or drift off-topic. If you are unhappy about the way things are going, you can contact the Elves directly or express your concerns on the Feedback group - or even OT-Chatter. Re your last sentence, I challenge you to wade through the hundreds of posts I have sent since July 2003 and find a thread of Harry-bashing or JKR-bashing running through. I have consistently supported Harry and tried to be positive about the books all the way including through the weeks following the publication of DH when more people were voicing their concerns than being supportive and I resent the implication that I have been disparaging of either the books or their creator. But when you, like Elijah, were saying that there were no JKR supporters left, there was a strong and sometimes unspoken undertow of readers who were satisfied and didn't feel it necessary to say so. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 4 23:39:11 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:39:11 -0000 Subject: The Slytherins and Cedric, list reaction to DD, and favorite DH moments Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180356 Since we still have a five-post limit and I'm on my fourth, I'm going to do a Catlady-style post here, combining wholly unrelated points that I want to respond to. Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180316 > I do NOT think that Slytherin as house was redeemed, you know? > I think individuals of this house were redeemed and possible return of SOME slytherins students could be in line with it or not. > Maybe it were same Slyths who stood for Cedric, who knows? They would have been of age, no? Carol responds: I just wanted to mention that *all* of Slytherin House, in fact, every person present, including teachers and the students from Durmstrang, stood for Cedric (which is one reason that some of us interpret as evidence that Slytherin House isn't all bad): "They did it, all of them; the benches scraped as *everyone in the Hall* stood, and raised their goblets, and echoed in one loud, low, rumbling voice, 'Cedric Diggory!'" (GoF Am. ed. 721). Those words bring tears to my eyes even now. But many Slytherins, including Draco and his two cronies, refused to stand and toast Harry as they had Cedric. "But through a gap in the standing figures, Harry saw that Malfoy, Crabbe. Goyle, and many of the other Slytherins had remained defiantly in their seats, their goblets untouched" (723). Just why "many" but not all the Slytherins refused to stand and toast Harry as they had Cedric is not stated because, of course, we're seeing from Harry's point of view. For all we know, they still regard Cedric as "the real Hogwarts champion." (Or, as Harry thinks at one point in HBP, they hate him because he's beaten them so many times at Quidditch.) Nor do we know which Slytherins stood and toasted Harry since Harry (and therefore the narrator) doesn't know any other Slytherins by name at that point except Pansy, who isn't mentioned (but given her feelings for Draco and JKR's loathing of Pansy, I think we can safely guess that Pansy stayed in her seat.) Susan McGee wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180327 > it does seem that there have been a lot more posts focused on how DD is evil and how Ms. Rowling should be quiet since she talked about his being in love with Gellert Grindelvald. Carol responds: As you may recall, the backlash against Dumbledore began almost immediately after the list reopened to allow posts on DH. Some posters had predicted an extreme version on Puppetmaster Dumbledore, but I, for one, still saw him as flawed but essentially noble. I defended (and still defend) his reasons for leaving Harry with the Dursleys, for example. It was fascinating to find that he'd flirted with controlling Muggles "for the greater good" and been a close friend of Grindelwald's in his youth, but what was repellant for me (at least until "King's Cross" gave me back the Dumbledore I knew and loved--and I emphatically don't mean had a crush on) and still evidently repels many posters on this list is the extent of his manipulativeness. Voldemort calls Harry "Dumbledore's puppet," and though Harry does *choose* to go after the Horcruxes (and reject the Hallows) and does *choose* (after visiting Snape's memories in the Pensieve) to reject vengeance and sacrifice himself, the cold-bloodedness of DD's plan and his willingness to use people for "the greater good" is chilling. The first response of this sort that I can find is Colebiancardi's, which contains a longish paragraph beginning, "Don't get me started on Dumbledore's manipulations." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/172225 Later posts, still predating JKR's revelation about DD's sexual orientation (which posters are objecting to because it isn't in the books, just imposed on readers after the fact, even though JKR herself says its relevant only to DD's "infatuation" with GG, which is otherwise explained by DD himself in the book), are much more virulently anti-Dumbledore (or, in some cases, approving of DD's and even exaggerating DD's manipulative tactics). This disenchantment with or disapprobation of Dumbledore stems from DH itself and has nothing to do with JKR's claim that she always imagined him as gay. As far as I can see, what she always imagined him as is a cold intellectual who once put his own dreams of glory and power above his responsibility for his younger brother and sister. (Question: Why wasn't the ambitious and egotistical little Albus placed in Slytherin, aside from the fact that JKR wanted him to be a Gryffindor?) In a message that I can't find the link to, Pippin wrote: > I am not going to forget Snape crying his eyes out over that letter and tearing the photograph in two, nor clinging to Harry's robes as he tries to hang on to life long enough to complete his mission. I am not going to forget Harry reaching out to pat Dumbledore's arm and glad to find that he could. And I am not going to forget Harry telling Albus Severus that it doesn't matter where the Hat puts him. > > Anyone else want to talk about unforgettable DH moments? Carol responds: To be as succinct as possible, my favorite DH moments are Fred and George transformed into Harry saying "We're identical!"; Kreacher whanging Mundungus on the head with that saucepan; Ron retrieving the Sword of Gryffindor, rescuing Harry, and symbolically destroying his own demons as he destroys the Horcrux; Harry looking into Snape's eyes (sob!); Neville heroically slaying Nagini; Percy abjectly and sincerely apologizing for being, in Fred's words, a "Ministry-loving, family-disowning, power-hungry moron"; and Harry naming his second son Albus Severus. I'm sure there are others, including parts of "The Prince's Tale" (Ceridwen, I think gave my favorite Snape quote of DH in the favorite quote thread) and the vindication of Regulus, but this list gives a fair sampling of moments that made me laugh, cry, or shout for joy. (Bathilda!Nagini made me jump out of my skin, but I don't count that as a favorite moment. Brrr! I hate Nagini!) Carol, who still loves the books, including DH, and certainly doesn't "hate" JKR despite being somewhat annoyed with her at the moment From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Fri Jan 4 23:54:23 2008 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 18:54:23 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ som... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180357 Susan: Second, I love all the books. I love the Deathly Hallows. That makes me in a minority, yes? I don't like everything in it. I'm happy to concede that Ms. Rowling hasn't done everything right. But I must be in the smallest minority of all -- I even love the epilogue! I love happy endings..and I am so happy for Harry that he has the family he has always dreamed of and that they are doing well... Sandy: While I don't *love* all of the books, including Deathly Hallows, I certainly *like* Deathly Hallows, and think it was much better than the two previous books. My main source of contention with it was that it totally confused me, and it changed forever my perception of Dumbledore, and that was before JKR ever gave one of her post DH interviews. My very favorite part of DH is the epilogue. I *wanted* Harry to survive, marry Ginny and have the peace and happiness he so richly deserved, and, like you, I love happy endings. Susan: Third, (and I am obviously NOT in the majority HERE), I think it's great that Professor Dumbledore is gay. Sandy: I don't share that feeling, but only because it wasn't written that way. Had he been written as gay it wouldn't have bothered me, although I can't say I could have seen the point in writing him that way, but absolutely nothing gave me the impression that he was. Susan: I do think that a few posts that are focusing on how awful/dreadful/awful/dreadful/evil Dumbledore i knowing that he is gay... Sandy: That is not the case with me. To begin with, I don't *know* that he *is* gay. I certainly didn't read a gay Dumbledore, and JKR's statement is, to me, ambiguous. She said she always *imagined* he was gay, not that he definitely *was* gay. Her oral statement, IMO, can be as interpretive as her written statements can. Finding out about DD's past did shake me, but it wasn't the definitive thing that forever changed my feelings and perception of him. My DH book is where I can't get to it right now so I can't give an exact quote, but it was Snape's statement about Harry being the pig for slaughter that changed my feelings toward both of them. For the very first time I actually appreciated Snape, and I absolutely abhorred DD. In my reading, and opinion, that is *exactly* what DD, the epitome of goodness, did. He put that innocent baby in the hands of the Dursleys, and the young boy in harm's way every chance he got, to fatten him up for slaughter. He didn't have a clue, until the end of GOF, that Harry could possibly survive, but he fattened him up nonetheless. Not even loving Harry stopped him from this mission or compelled him to better prepare Harry for it. I could go on and on about this, but hopefully I have made my point. My, now, complete dislike of DD has nothing to do with his sexual orientation, especially since I never saw one. It is all about Harry. Susan: But of course I could be wrong about that.... it does seem that there have been a lot more posts focused on how DD is evil and how Ms. Rowling should be quiet since she talked about his being in love with Gellert Grindelvald. I'm wondering if those who have a problem with Professor Dumbledore being gay have a problem with anyone being gay? Sandy: If DD is truly gay I don't have a problem with it, nor do I have a problem with anyone else being gay. My second best friend in the world, whom I love dearly, is a gay man. I have another dear friend who is also a gay man. I work with a lesbian couple and get along with them just fine and like them both. Actually, they are a hoot, and one of them in particular is a lot of fun. You just never know what she's going to say next. I am not a homophobe, and I feel rather sorry for those who are because they could be missing the opportunity to have a great friend. Sandy **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Fri Jan 4 23:57:46 2008 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:57:46 -0000 Subject: Prime Ministers & secrets Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180358 As I recall, Prime Ministers don't report to their fellows when they are visited by the Minister of Magic or other wizards because they would be laughed at. Britain had a longish period of Irish terrorists well before 9/11. Without saying why, the PM could easily ask for more protection, including all sorts of spy devices. The next wizardly manifestation would find themselves surrounded by automatic weapons. I'm not sure that this would affect the narration. It is another area though where the author is blind to the hi-tech world in which HP was written. Supposedly set in the 90s, it feels as if it's set in WW2. Barry From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 00:53:55 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:53:55 -0000 Subject: Respect / Unforgettable moments LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180359 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Zanooda earlier: > > Imagine this: after publishing "War and Peace" Lev Tolstoy > > gives an interview where he claims that your beloved Prince > > Andrey was really gay! > Alla: > Yes, so? zanooda: He would be a different character, that's all :-). He wouldn't be worse, and he wouldn't be better - just different, with different motivations and life story. And if I can't see this story in the book, if it's just something the writer said after the book was published - here it becomes confusing to me. Sexual orientation doesn't mean this much in DD's case, of course, but still, I feel that I react differently to some scenes in the book, and there is a strange mixture of old DD and new DD in my head :-). I'm glad that Susan and others got their wish, but I personally would have preferred not to get this outside-the-book piece of information on DD. > Alla: > But say she puts it in encyclopedia, and then it > becomes her written word, so how is it different from what Tolstoy > did? zanooda: Yeah, I'll have to accept it then, I guess :-), but still, it's not exactly what Tolstoy did - he wrote it in the book. I would like JKR to leave us a choice though. I would like her to write something like this in her encyclopedia: "I always imagined DD being gay. However, I didn't write it in the books, and DD sexuality is not important to the plot, so you all are free to imagine him whatever you like - gay, straight or asexual". I actually liked it that she said "I imagined" (or something similar, I don't remember exactly) words while outing DD - I still had a choice then :-). Unfortunately, she spoiled it all for me in her next interview with this "He is my character and he is what he is" statement. I think she did it because the reporters jumped at her rather agressively, and she just went all defensive and said it, but I really wish that she didn't ;-(. I still believe that "he is what he is" only when this "what" is in the book :-). Take care, dear Allochka! Happy New Year! From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Sat Jan 5 00:54:15 2008 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 19:54:15 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ som... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180360 Alla: > > So tell me are you upset about any other statement in her interviews > besides Dumbledore being gay? It seems to be the only interview you > keep mentioning. Shelley: The gay Dumbledore is the most obvious one, of course- the major goof. But I did mention others- the changing of her mind of who Luna would marry, and the past one about saying that someone in the books would start to use magic later in life. Sandy: Okay, I'm going to jump in on this too. I am going to agree with Shelley's assessment of the Dumbledore statement in that it was the most obvious one, made up of whole cloth and out of the blue, for what purposes I am still trying to determine. There was absolutely nothing in canon to point us in this direction. But the conflicting post DH statements she gave that irritated me the most, and caused me lose respect for her, was the Trio's professions. A week or so after the book was released I watched, and taped, an interview she did with one of the major USA networks, and can't remember which it was. In that interview she was asked about the Trio's professions, and she stated that Harry and Ron were aurors and Hermione was at the MoM. The very next day she did a live chat on the internet, was asked the same question, but this time she gave a different answer. On the live chat her answer was that Harry was an auror and that Ron was working with George in the joke shop. Huh?! Which one was it? She had also changed the statement about Luna. In the interview Luna was not married, in the live chat Luna was married to Whoever Scamander. Again, which was it? That's when I formed the opinion that she was making things up as she went along and that you couldn't trust anything she said. She couldn't keep straight, from one day to the next, what she had already said. You would think, after all of the years she spent developing and living with these characters, that she would know exactly how each one turned out, especially the Trio, but that was obviously not the case. If she hadn't definitively decided all of this yet she should have kept her mouth shut until she did. She could have used any excuse to do so from demurring until everyone had had a chance to read the book, or saying she would reveal all of that in the encyclopedia. Another option would have been to say that she would let the readers decide that for themselves. I honestly don't know how anyone can consider her spoken words as canon. She has changed them too many times. What she has written in the books is canon, what she has *said*, even if it's in print on her website, is not. Who knows what she will change between now and when/if she ever publishes the encyclopedia. or Scottish Book, as she calls it? In my opinion, she would have been better off keeping her mouth shut for a while. If she had she wouldn't be subject to this criticism, that some seem to be so offended that she is getting. I am far less critical of the books than I am of her post publication interviews. But either way, people are entitled to their opinions and have the right to express them, whether or not they are favorable to JKR. Sandy **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 01:25:02 2008 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:25:02 -0000 Subject: Occlumency lessons WAS: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Charact In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180361 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: > > > To put this another way, and to echo Magpie's lengthy comment, I do > > not remember JKR lying about what Harry physically saw or felt. > > Harry saw what he saw. He felt what he felt. He wasn't > > hallucinating. His *interpretations* were incorrect, not his > > eyesight or ability to feel pain. > > > > How do we know this? JKR came back later to correct the mistaken > > interpretations with fuller explanations -- or at least, she should > > have done, in the text. > > > Alla: > > Not always and not as far as I remember. Yes, I agree with you > Harry's ability to feel something is often correct and when Snape > attacks him on first lesson, he does just that - attacks him on the > first lesson. Let's put aside whether Snape hated him - I believe he > is correct, but this is an interpretation. > > Fast forward to Occlumency lessons - Harry feels pain, doesn't he? > > Do we ever find out if Snape had anything to do whatsoever with that > pain? Do we ever find out if Harry had pain from the lesson, if he > had pain at all or was it all in his mind? > > I mean I vehemently argued in the past that Snape could be > deliberately opening his mind to Voldemort, but in light of all the > information would he really do that? > > How exactly was this information corrected? > Annemehr: Didn't Dumbledore wrap that up in his OoP wrap-up speech in ch. 37? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Snape stopped giving me Occlumency lessons!" Harry snarled. "He threw me out of his office!" "I am aware of it," said Dumbledore heavily. "I have already said that it was a mistake for me not to teach you myself, though I was sure, at the time, that nothing could have been more dangerous than to open your mind even further to Voldemort while in my presence --" "Snape made it worse, my scar always hurt worse after lessons with him --" Harry remembered Ron's thoughts on the subject and plunged on. "How do you know he wasn't trying to soften me up for Voldemort, make it easier for him to get inside my --" "I trust Severus Snape," said Dumbledore simply. "But I forgot -- another old man's mistake -- that some wounds run too deep for the healing. I thought Professor Snape could overcome his feelings about your father -- I was wrong." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So, one answer we got: Occlumency lessons did in fact open Harry's mind further to Voldemort, and that's why DD wouldn't give them. And when the scar link was open to Voldemort, there was pain. Of course, this raises the further question as to why Harry wasn't informed that this would happen as a result of the lessons. Dumbledore certainly knew. Did Snape? We are never told, though we know he certainly never told Harry. However, if LV could sense Harry's Occlumency teacher during lessons (which would be why DD wouldn't be the teacher), then it would give Snape some sort of cover with LV -- he could tell *him* Harry was being deliberately softened up under the guise of trying to learn the opposite. And of course, certain Puppetmaster!DD believers would have said that was DD's intent as well... As far as Harry's perceptions are concerned, though, they were accurate all along. Snape's Occlumency lessons did make him worse. Annemehr P.S. For what it's worth, I heartily agree with the posters who say there's no way to read Slytherin students into the group of adults following Slughorn into battle, without doing violence to the way we communicate. P.P.S. I'd lay odds we can expect JKR to re-edit the series with corrections and clarifications some day...well, not soon, but eventually. From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net Sat Jan 5 01:52:26 2008 From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:52:26 -0000 Subject: Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180362 susanmcgee48176: > I am of the opinion that Ms. Rowling's statements in interviews > are "canon" in the same way the books are canon. > However, others have decided that only that which can be > found in the published books is canon. I absolutely respect > your decision to do so. We can agree to disagree. Pippin Fowler: Don't we have a List Elves' definition of 'canon' somewhere, for purposes of discussion and message format? I've been proceeding with the idea that 'canon' equals the text of the 7 books only, yet I continue to see digressions from that. I don't have an opinion about what the definition should be, but I think it would aid group communication to have one definition. susanmcgee48176: > I find it terribly upsetting to hear her [JKR] attacked and her > character and intentions defamed. I don't think she is a > perfect individual (who is?) but I admire her for her writings, > her viewpoints, her family life, and her philanthropic work. > It's amazing and great that she is giving so much money to > charity, and working to promote so much charitable giving. Pippin Fowler: I am in this minority with you. It is a great literary accomplishment from start to finish, and I believe JKR maintained a high degree of personal and professional integrity in a very hype- happy environment. susanmcgee48176: > Second, I love all the books. I love the Deathly Hallows. Pippin Fowler: As an adult reader, I love most of the books. The main problem I have with the whole body of work is that the later books became so grim and gruesome that I cannot recommend the books for young children. I'm frequently shocked by the violence and language in all media these days. Perhaps most readers are accustomed to more grit and gore than I ever will be. susanmcgee48176: > But I must be in the smallest minority of all -- I even love > the epilogue! I love happy endings..and I am so happy for Harry > that he has the family he has always dreamed of and that they > are doing well... Pippin Fowler: Oh, heck, I wanted it to be even happier. I wanted more than just a nod from Draco--something more like Dudley's farewell to Harry, just a little bit of genuine gratitude for Harry pulling Draco out of the flames. susanmcgee48176: > Third, (and I am obviously NOT in the majority HERE), I think > it's great that Professor Dumbledore is gay. Pippin Fowler: I wish it had been in canon explicitly, but I believe JKR had rich layers of background on all of her major characters from the start, and that being gay was part of Dumbledore from the start. --"but you cannot deny he's got style" said Phineas Nigellus. It could have been in canon explicitly, in scenes of Dumbledore's youth, and the omission saddens me. Pippin Fowler From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 5 03:01:33 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 03:01:33 -0000 Subject: Snape's motives for joining the DE's was Rowling interview transcript In-Reply-To: <477EB89A.9050800@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180363 Irene: > I still think that's a ridiculous motivation for Snape joining DE. It's > in the books that Lily chided him repeatedly for his choice of friends > with interest in Dark Arts. How is it possible that he thought becoming > really good in Dark Arts is going to impress Lily? > Pippin: Canon shows he didn't take her objections very seriously, just like she didn't take it seriously when he suspected The Marauders of being up to something worse than being toerags. He was attracted to power and IMO he was young enough to suppose that everyone else was too. He couldn't have the power of being rich and popular and pureblooded like James and Sirius, but he could have the power of dark magic and a powerful master. I'm sure Lily's revulsion was beyond him. I doubt he could see why beating up on Mary for being Muggleborn was so much worse than beating up on Severus Snape because he exists. Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jan 4 15:35:16 2008 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:35:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477E5234.2020200@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180364 liliput99ar wrote: > I would have made Harry remember the mirror Sirius gave him to keep in > touch!! (OotP). I could not bear at that time the thinking of how > different things could have been... Bart: OK, it was one thing for Harry to forget the mirror. But so did Sirius! Film critic Roger Ebert, in his list of "movie myths", lists one called the "idiot plot". This refers to a plot which requires that everybody act like an idiot in order for the plot to work. Sirius gives Harry a device to communicate with him, yet the gang has to wrack their brains trying to figure out a way to communicate with Sirius, and, after the first time following Harry receiving the mirror, Sirius doesn't say, "Why didn't you just use the mirror I gave you?" There is a flaw in writing which usually plagues writers that are overhurried; I don't know the technical term for it, but I refer to it as writing at the character instead of writing the character. It is thinking of the character in the third person rather than the first. JKR has Sirius give the mirror to Harry, and then they both forget about it. Well, I ask, is there anybody reading this who would not have bothered to TRY OUT the mirror as soon as possible? In the main area of this thread, JKR was too clever for her own good. She carefully hid clues in minutia of the novels, but did not consider the fact that this would cause readers to pay a LOT of attention to the minutia. When she was inconsistent, readers naturally took it for a clue. But a lot of the time, it turned out that she simply was being inconsistent. Bart [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From s_ings at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 04:13:52 2008 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 23:13:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Editorial input, was: Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40801030450w62f8b564o72123f19af84b2c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <732651.86402.qm@web63412.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180365 > > Pippin Fowler: > > I suppose we have 7 books because students attend > Hogwarts for 7 years. > > Yet events could have caused Hogwarts to close for > a year, allowing at > > least one more book. No telling how much external > pressure was heaped > > upon our author during the writing of the later > books, but I'd guess it > > was crushing at times. JKR mentions on her website > that the mistake in > > the order of the Priori Incantatem of Voldemort's > wand was due to a > > rushing editor's mistake that JKR didn't correct. > > > montims: > > Just to put the record straight, as I've seen this > mentioned a few times now > - this only happened in the American first edition > of the book, not the UK > version. > Sheryll: To correct the record further, this error was not only in the first US edition. It was also in the first Canadian edition. *rummages about shelves for GoF* Yep, there it is. I thought the Canadian editions were the same as the UK. They're definitely not the same as the US versions. Sheryll Join the fun at Convention Alley 2008 Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 06:25:07 2008 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:25:07 -0000 Subject: Biggest DH dissapointment Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180366 Apologies if this has been "answered" before. I've been haunting the boards and not posting for awhile. As people in general have been pointing out, there seems to be a feeling of let down and a falling off of participating on the board, now that DH has been out for six months. I was trying to tell myself, despite evidence to the contrary, that DH was good. I liked it, don't get me wrong, but I thought it failed in several key ways. I won't go into the other several--the biggest one for me seems to be that the entire plot (or at least a major subplot) seemed to turn upon a fact that Harry should have discovered long ago. Snape loved Lily. In her interview Rowling says in general that she put clues in the books as to what would happen--I certainly saw all the clues with Snape indicating that he was "good," so much so that it was no surprise to me and I almost didn't even worry about it. I also knew he would die. And the clues that he was friends with Lily were there, too. "That awful boy," and the fact that Lily was good at potions. Lily's defense of Snape, of course. Etc. But I never believed those clues because it made no sense that Snape loved Lily, because if he had loved her and been such a close friend, everyone would have known (and they did) and someone would have mentioned something to Harry. As time has gone by I think that this revelation was a really cheap vicious cheat. Because, really, it's illogical to spring that on us now, when Harry would have heard it many times before from any number of people, esp. Sirius and Remus. They certainly would have known that Lily and Snape were best friends, even if they didn't think that Snape loved her. And everyone could see that he did. Everyone. Why on earth would Remus and Sirius hold back something like that? Especially Sirius, who would have relished telling Harry that Snape held a terrible grudge because he was thwarted in love? I don't get it. I just don't get it. That fact is so important, but it is also extremely public. It's pretty public who one's friends are. Certainly Snape's DE friends are widely known and mentioned. How could it not be widely known that he was best friends with Lily? What would be the purpose of withholding that knowledge from Harry? I would think it would be the first thing I would have told him. Pre- PoA, okay, maybe there's no one around to say, and Dumbledore feels like he shouldn't discuss Snape's feelings with Harry, because of his promise. Okay. But during/after PoA? Why didn't Sirius say anything? As in: Harry: Snape hates me! Sirius: 'Course he hates you! He was in love with your mum and she chose your father instead! Snape's a pathetic git! Harry: (long pause) Oh. Well that explains a lot. Thanks! Sirius: 'Welcome. I've been looking over that scene in PoA where Snape confronts the Marauders in the Shrieking Shack--it's the first thing Sirius would have thrown at him. And Snape taunting him about his "hidey hole" in OotP? Easy opportunity to make Snape cringe. Did I miss something? Did Dumbledore tell everyone never to say anything about Snape and Lily? And how could he have ever told Sirius, who disappeared before he could have made any such promise? It's sort of freaking me out as I think back on the other books. Somebody help! Maybe there's an easy answer I'm not seeing. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 07:59:07 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 07:59:07 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: <477E5234.2020200@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180367 --- Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > liliput99ar wrote: > > I would have made Harry remember the mirror Sirius gave him > > to keep in touch!! (OotP). ... Harry to forget the mirror. > > But so did Sirius! > Bart: > > Film critic Roger Ebert, in his list of "movie myths", lists > one called the "idiot plot". This refers to a plot which > requires that everybody act like an idiot in order for the > plot to work. ... > > There is a flaw in writing which usually plagues writers that > are overhurried; ..., but I refer to it as writing at the > character instead of writing the character. It is thinking > of the character in the third person .... JKR has Sirius > give the mirror to Harry, and then they both forget about it. > Well, I ask, is there anybody reading this who would not have > bothered to TRY OUT the mirror as soon as possible? > > ... > > Bart bboyminn: Well in the context of this thread, anything goes, you can rewrite as you see fit. But in the context of the actual series as written, the mirror is explained. Harry doesn't know what the gift is, he never opens it, and he puts it away and forgets about it because he vows to NOT be the one who lures Sirius out of hiding and puts him at risk. Now the need comes many month later after he has forgotten about it. Remember, he threw it in his trunk and never opened it. So, he doesn't really know what it is. I think JKR brought the mirror into this part of the story so it would be an established object that she could fall back on later in the final book. Also note that she introduced the magic pocket knife in PoA. Harry realizes he could have used it at the bottom of the lake in GoF, but it doesn't really come into use until OotP. That's part of the game she plays, things are introduced in one book but don't really pay off until much later. As far as Sirius, the only time Harry and Sirius talk, Harry is distracted by other things, and before Sirius can ask him why he isn't using the mirror, they are interrupted and the conversation ends abruptly. I can share Harry's and reader's frustration that Harry didn't have the mirror when he really needed it, but I think the books explain clearly how that came about. Still, I was really hoping Harry would think about the mirror in later books and have Hermione create more. One for Ron, one for Hermione, one for Harry, and at least one more for Ginny. Though other characters could have certainly used one. Maybe people at school would see Ginny's and try to create their own. Anyway, I can understand wanting Harry to remember the mirror and to use it. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 12:15:31 2008 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:15:31 -0000 Subject: Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180368 susanmcgee48176: "I am of the opinion that Ms. Rowling's statements in interviews are "canon" in the same way the books are canon." Pippin Fowler: "Don't we have a List Elves' definition of 'canon' somewhere, for purposes of discussion and message format? I've been proceeding with the idea that 'canon' equals the text of the 7 books only, yet I continue to see digressions from that." The HPFGU definition always included quotes from JKR along with the text, but excluded anything else, particularly including the movies once they came along. It could be time to reexamine that, because the series is now complete. Then, we were all looking for any kind of clue to what was going to happen in the next book, and obviously any hint JKR dropped was going to be turned inside out. susanmcgee48176: "I find it terribly upsetting to hear her [JKR] attacked and her character and intentions defamed. I don't think she is a perfect individual (who is?) but I admire her for her writings, her viewpoints, her family life, and her philanthropic work. It's amazing and great that she is giving so much money to charity, and working to promote so much charitable giving." Pippin Fowler: "I am in this minority with you. It is a great literary accomplishment from start to finish, and I believe JKR maintained a high degree of personal and professional integrity in a very hype- happy environment." Here's three of us. These books are amazingly rich in character and theme, a great achievement. What bothers me is how severe and personalized criticism of JKR is for what are actually unimportant flaws. Partly I think it's a trend in society of tearing down ("debunking") people who actually accomplish something, done by people who couldn't approach their target's accomplishment. "Lose all respect" for a philanthropist and humanitarian who is also the author of the largest phenomenon in the history of publishing? I'm just glad nobody's discussing the flaws in *my* life here. The flaws and inconsistencies in the canon, of which there are plenty, could be discussed on their own merits anywhere; there's no question of anyone's right to point them out or to complain that JKR has been too didactic in interviews lately. (personally, I think she'll calm down after this high wears off) It's the hysteria of it that turns me off. susanmcgee48176: "Third, (and I am obviously NOT in the majority HERE), I think it's great that Professor Dumbledore is gay." Pippin Fowler: "I wish it had been in canon explicitly, but I believe JKR had rich layers of background on all of her major characters from the start, and that being gay was part of Dumbledore from the start. --"but you cannot deny he's got style" said Phineas Nigellus. It could have been in canon explicitly, in scenes of Dumbledore's youth, and the omission saddens me." JKR avoided sexuality beyond making out, and there's only one or two places, both in DH, where Dumbledore's gayness would have had any relevance. I remember thinking when I heard Dumbledore was gay that his sexuality wasn't a big part of his personality; his life was more about his intellect than anything else. That one time in his life was the only exception we know. The final testimony to this story is this: how many other stories have been worth this much discussion? Every one of JKR's detractors repudiate themselves every time they take a shot at her. Jim Ferer From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 5 16:40:48 2008 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:40:48 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180369 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" > One more purely personal tidbit. Snape is dead, and while I believe > he's happy in the afterlife (yes, I do know he's a fictional > character), I can no longer think about him in the present. I wish she > had let him survive to be headmaster of Hogwarts or at least allowed > him to escape to a deserted island to put all of his marvelous > knowledge of Potions and DADA and spell invention into books that > would actually be useful to Hogwarts students. So much wasted > potential. It's a sadder loss, for me, even than the death of poor > Cedric at seventeen. The WW without Snape isn't the WW any more. For > me, I mean. I'm sure others feel otherwise. > > Carol, for whom the joy and intellectual stimulation of posting has > diminished, along with the pleasure of rereading the books, thanks > primarily to JKR herself Marianne: This bit about Snape is very interesting to me because it echoes what I felt at the end of OoP after the death of Sirius. I felt the same sense of loss at a life (yes, I, too know he's fictional!) that had not been truly lived and that was also a great waste of potential. (What do you know - another parallel between Snape and Sirius!) I had the same wish that JKR had let Sirius survive as Carol had about Snape. So, after OoP, I had a definite lessening of interest in the remaining books. In that sense, maybe I was several years ahead of where many fans are now. I wanted to find out what happened certainly, but I didn't have the same level of enthusiasm for the books as I had originally had. I thought HBP was okay, although I found parts hard to swallow. The 7th book, while having its moments of high drama, was ultimately a let-down for me, chiefly due to the moral messages that I came away with. Marianne, echoing Carol's sign-off From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 5 18:00:40 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:00:40 -0000 Subject: Respect In-Reply-To: <477E631A.6090402@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180370 > KJ writes: > > I think what bothers me is that throughout the books, the > characters grew in age, in thought, in moral fibre, and in magical > strength. In the last book, that didn't seem to happen. Pippin: They're adults in this book. Personal growth is desirable but it's no longer their main job in life. Much growth that occurs is kept subtle. We're often watching it happen instead of experiencing it through the inner life of the characters. As Dumbledore told us in OOP, youth should not be expected to understand how age thinks and feels. JKR shows us her newly adult characters as she has always depicted adults in HP, with the reader mostly having to guess what they're feeling from their actions, except in the moments when they're being so immature that a two year old could read their minds. Hermione doesn't go nowhere, IMO. She learns to work with a House Elf as he is rather than as she would like him to be, and she not only manages to improve things for Kreacher, Ron finally shows that he understands that Elvish welfare is worth bothering about. Ron, of course, is a comic foil and is never allowed to do anything either brave or noble without doing something to make a fool of himself immediately afterwards. Nonetheless he finally learns that he'd rather feel inadequate and be with his friends than be alone, the best of any of them. Harry learns to do a crucio and then learns not to do it-- no one could have stopped him from cruciating every DE he could get his hands on, but he does not. He also learns definitively that contrary to what Ron once told him, poisonous toadstools can change their spots. He also learns that it's as important to know how to give up power as how to get it. Draco's story is the most subtle. In HBP he was willing to lower his wand, but only with the promise of rescue. In DH he mostly suffers, and it seems pointless, but he learns he can endure suffering to the point where he is willing to stay by Goyle in the RoR whether he gets rescued or not. KJ: > We are expected to believe that since Snape loved Lily because she was > his only friend, that there was no conflict for him over the years in > setting out to destroy the only people who took him into their ranks and > treated him with respect. Pippin: If it was really him they respected, they would have respected his feelings for Lily. When he realized they would never do that, I think he realized that he was nothing in their eyes. Can you wonder that he broke with them completely when they disappointed him so badly, when in the same thread we're discussing how readers could so completely lose their respect for JKR? You (I'm using this generically and not to any particular poster) thought she would care about the same things you cared about. And when you discovered she didn't, you felt used. And angry. And it only makes you angrier to realize that you might've known all along. Right? KJ: > Whether Dumbledore is gay or not makes no difference, which is why I > object to it. If it had been used to show us that the decisions he made > with regard to GG had affected his life, I could understand, but as it > is, it's pointless. Any information about a character belongs in the > book, it should be clear, and there should be a point to it other than > what we fill in as readers. Pippin: I'm not following your logic. It's pointless for it to be in the books if it has no effect, but any information about a character should be in the books? The process of character generation can create a lot of information that an author may decide not to use. Are you saying JKR shouldn't have even thought about the sexual orientation of her characters, or that once she had she was obligated to make it relevant to the story? Why? JKR has put lots of unused character information on her website, along with snippets of scenes that were cut and earlier stages of the story. None of that was the least bit controversial for some reason. I wouldn't say nobody hates JKR. Few people on this site, because there's more scope for their venom elsewhere. But there's plenty of them out there. I think if JKR says the book was well-considered, we could give her the courtesy of suspending our disbelief (if necessary) and try to understand what she means. There's a technique in the movies where the sound track goes dead while something on the screen should be making a very loud noise, like a scream or an explosion. It's an effective way of getting the audience to imagine a noise that would be too loud or too painful to produce literally. Discussing DH sometimes feels as if I'm discussing such a move with some very literal-minded film goers who keep insisting that explosions have to be noisy, and either the director forgot to put the sound in or there wasn't really supposed to be any explosion at all. And then pointing to every technical error the director ever made as "proof". Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Jan 5 18:59:04 2008 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:59:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Editorial input, was: Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: <732651.86402.qm@web63412.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <732651.86402.qm@web63412.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <477FD378.5050602@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180371 Sheryll Townsend wrote: > Yep, there it is. I thought the Canadian editions were > the same as the UK. They're definitely not the same as > the US versions. Bart: Certainly not. The books have to be translated into Canadian. What do you expect from a country that thinks the first letter of the alphabet is "Eh?". Bart From kjones at telus.net Sat Jan 5 19:35:32 2008 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:35:32 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Respect In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477FDC04.5070601@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 180372 pippin_999 wrote: > > > Pippin: > They're adults in this book. Personal growth is desirable but it's no > longer their main job in life. Much growth that occurs is kept subtle. > We're often watching it happen instead of experiencing it through the > inner life of the characters. As Dumbledore told us in OOP, youth > should not be expected to understand how age thinks and feels. KJ Writes: Great answers, Pippin. Thanks for responding. You are right in saying that they are now adults, but I am only considering the characters from the point of continuity in the books. Nothing else. We, as readers, fill in gaps in our knowledge about characters automatically. I am saying that they should have maintained the same basic character from one book to the next, with only age appropriate changes. There were some disconnects for me in the last book. Some writers write characters and let their chosen characters direct the action. Other writers write the story and force the characters into the action whether it is appropriate to their personality or not. Readers then fill in explanations. I'm just saying that it should not have been necessary in the last book, because the first six books were maintained perfectly in character. > Harry learns to do a crucio and then learns not to do it-- > no one could have stopped him from cruciating every DE he > could get his hands on, but he does not. He also learns definitively > that contrary to what Ron once told him, poisonous toadstools can > change their spots. He also learns that it's as important to know how > to give up power as how to get it. KJ: I did not find the writing of Harry learning that Snape was on the "good side" convincing. Snape was not working for "good," he was working for Lilly, which to my mind is also not convincing. Fine, if Snape was totally ineffectual, mooning about his lost Lilly, mentally damaged by the loss, he would not have become as effective as he did. He was second to Voldemort. The kind of person, as Snape was portrayed, was likely to find Dumbledore of enormous importance in his life. He was never jealous of Dumbledore's relationship with Harry, which he should have been after 20 years. How would Harry understand that Snape was "good" enough to name a child, from watching his obsessive memories of Lilly? Presumably Harry named his son as a sign of respect for courage, not because he understood that Snape was a good person in disguise. Snape was never allowed to actually become a good person, which is also odd to me because Lilly liked him. A person like Lilly would dislike a bad person, which of course, eventually happened. > Pippin: > If it was really him they respected, they would have respected his > feelings for Lily. When he realized they would never do that, I > think he realized that he was nothing in their eyes. Can you > wonder that he broke with them completely when they disappointed > him so badly, when in the same thread we're discussing how readers > could so completely lose their respect for JKR? KJ: This is blanks being filled in again. You, as a reader, should not have to do this. He did not break with them completely. JKR showed us several times that Snape was tight with Lucius. Narcissa trusted him, he was comfortable in his scene with the Death Eaters and Burbidge. He was meant to be seen as one of them. JKR never meant us to see him as other than he was, the character just kept getting away from her. That was the disconnect. We as readers, kept seeing more to him, as our minds filled in explanations for his actions. Pippin: > You (I'm using this generically and not to any particular poster) > thought she would care about the same things you cared about. And > when you discovered she didn't, you felt used. And angry. And it > only makes you angrier to realize that you might've known all along. > Right? KJ: Wrong. Since I am only concerned with characterization, it makes no difference to me what the messages in the story say, although they are rather confused, and I don't really care that she ended the book differently than I might have expected, but I do expect to see continuity in characterization and a point to the whole exercise. > Pippin: > I'm not following your logic. It's pointless for it to be in the books if > it has no effect, but any information about a character should be in the > books? The process of character generation can create a lot of information > that an author may decide not to use. Are you saying JKR shouldn't > have even thought about the sexual orientation of her characters, or that > once she had she was obligated to make it relevant to the story? Why? KJ: If a character's choices are based on certain happenings in his life, then the basis for those happenings should be in the book and in the characterization. Dumbledore said that it was our choices that made us who we are, therefore, his defining choice should have been clear. His character was connected with love of another man, Snape's was based on the love for a woman. Make it clear for God's sake. If not, leave it out, especially after the book is published. What was the point of making him gay, which had an effect on the story, and then telling us after the end? Pippin: > I think if JKR says the book was well-considered, we could > give her the courtesy of suspending our disbelief (if necessary) and try > to understand what she means. KJ: All I am saying is that it is not up to us to suspend our belief. It is the job of the author to ensure that our belief is not suspended. She did a fabulous job for six books. There were few errors that made any difference to the story. It tracked. For some reason, it fell apart in the last book. We are not obliged to forcibly suspend our disbelief when our minds tell us that something is wrong with a book. Are we just supposed to assume that the writer has not failed, that there is something wrong with us? She had a problem with this last book. It feels like she was forced into deciding whether Harry lived or died, had to change a bunch of people and information, and add a bunch of stuff that didn't need to be there, in order for that to happen. That is why this book is disappointing. And yes, if something blows up, there had better be a noise! From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Jan 5 19:44:47 2008 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:44:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Biggest DH dissapointment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477FDE2F.5000708@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180373 leslie41 wrote: > Did I miss something? Did Dumbledore tell everyone never to say > anything about Snape and Lily? And how could he have ever told > Sirius, who disappeared before he could have made any such promise? > > It's sort of freaking me out as I think back on the other books. > > Somebody help! Maybe there's an easy answer I'm not seeing. Here is what I gathered: 1) The Gryffindors despised Snape, and the Slytherins despised Lily. Therefore, neither group really thought that Snape's and Lily's friendship could possibly be as deep as it was (I don't have it in front of me, but pay attention to the comments made by the Griffindors especially in the flashbacks; they seem to think that Lily was being charitable to an oddball, and that there was no real friendship. I suspect most people think of that with Harry and Luna, as well, not realizing that Luna was one of the few people on whom Harry could completely rely. 2) They never had a romantic relationship, and they broke up when they were like 14 or 15. 3) Because of #1, neither Snape nor Lily talked about it with their friends, who wouldn't have understood anyway. For these reasons, I suspect that, with the possible exception of Dumbledore, who swore to keep quiet, Voldemort, who didn't understand it anyway, and Petunia, who did not know that the information might be important, nobody really knew (or, if they could have known, believed) how close they really were. Bart From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sat Jan 5 21:03:57 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 13:03:57 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0801051303o7029a01cld6adaac63c698662@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180374 Shelley: I don't think so. Rowling has been very reluctant to let the readers have this book ending for themselves. She still wants control, as if she's already writing another book and planning it out in her mind. In the interviews between books, she was right to tell the readers, Lynda: I don't see this. So she now says that she has always seen Dumbledore as gay. It wasn't relevant to the storyline of the books so it was never mentioned. And that has nothing to do with the outcome of the books as a whole. In the long run, its still her story. If it were mine, I probably would not have mentioned that I always one of my characters who is a major character but not the protaganist was gay when it wasn't germaine to the plot--I'd probably say something like, "what do you imagine that character to be. I never mentioned it in the books", but that's just me and I'm not going to fault Rowling for doing things differently than I would have. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 21:27:01 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:27:01 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180375 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Yeah. I also remember the very clear cut, unambiguous reveals. > > Where is the big reveal showing us that the folks Harry thought > > were adults were actually fellow students as well? > >>Carol responds: > I agree that there's no clear-cut, unambiguous reveal, but we're > never told exactly what happened in many other instances, either. Betsy Hp: But that's my point. If Slytherin returning to join the fray isn't a big deal (which the lack of an unambiguous reveal tells me it's not) than there was no reason for JKR to be coy. IOWs, if there's not a solution, there never was a mystery in the first place. > >>Carol: > The closest we get here is "Slytherin played its part" in the battle > itself, which can't refer solely to Snape... Betsy Hp: Sure it can. Especially if Phineas's exclamation is meant to be seen (as I think it was) as the helpless braying of a fairly useless "ally". I think it was meant to be more comedic than profound, with a side of pathetic. (Slytherin in a nutshell per JKR's view, I think.) > >>Carol: > Both Phineas's remark and Harry's later attitude that it's okay for > his son to be sorted into Slytherin make sense only if Slytherin > students returned to the battle. Betsy Hp: But it doesn't make sense of the fact that JKR played coy with their return, if it indeed happened. Again, why the mystery without a reveal? It makes more sense for Phineas to be seen as a bit of an pushy ass and Harry to be seen as a kind father with no worries of his son ending up in Slytherin. If JKR wanted Slytherin back in the fight and on the right side, why didn't she just do it? > >>Carol: > The "big reveal" in DH focuses on Snape... Betsy Hp: Actually, one of my big dissappointments with DH was the side-lining of Snape. His "revelation" was treated, I thought, like a footnote. Instead, the DH "big reveal" was Dumbldore's plan and that Dumbledore was a good guy. (Yeah, I'm sure you see the flaw.) In essentials, Harry was right about Snape. The man had no inner core of goodness or principle. He was just... easily manipulated and Dumbledore was better at it than Voldemort. All Harry realized was that Snape was truly Dumbledore's creature. It was a pretty pathetic "realization" to my mind. > >>Carol: > We get "The Prince's Tale," to which we don't see Harry reacting > directly, other than identifying with the young Snape > (and Tom Riddle!) as a fellow "lost boy" who felt at home at > Hogwarts, because he's caught up in Snape's message that he, Harry, > has to sacrifice himself (a message Snape could not have delivered > if he'd been AK'd for openly opposing Voldemort). > Betsy Hp: Exactly. The truth about Snape has no real affect on Harry. Instead of DH being about their relationship (a relationship I *thought* had been shaping the series) is was about Harry's "relationship" with Dumbledore (a relationship that didn't seem to exist until after Dumbledore died). Which is part of why the book read false to me (Harry's non-reaction to Snape's story was weird, as was his sudden obsession with Dumbledore). But because Harry no longer cared much about Snape or Draco, it meant that he no longer cared about Slytherin. So again, more fuel for the "no mystery here" fire. Slytherin fighting or not fighting wasn't going to do anything to the Harry we see at the end of DH. So why would JKR be coy about it? I honestly think that this sidelining of all things Slytherin was a massive story-telling mistake on JKR's part. She'd put too much into making them the big antagonist for Harry to suddenly say they didn't matter. Which I think is made apparent by all these attempts to ret- con them back into a place of importance. But the fact is, Draco not joining the good guys side, and instead being a good little (though massively pathetic) Death Eater does nothing to help or hinder Harry. Snape's death was just this side of meaningless, and the information dump of his life barely caused a blip in Harry's sense of himself and his views of the world. Slytherin, as a house, was so unimportant Harry didn't bother to figure out if they fought with him or against him. Heh. In some ways, I think the subject line best reflects my thoughts as I read DH: "Slytherin! Come back!" Betsy Hp From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 21:54:36 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:54:36 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180376 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Angel: > > House UNITY is an integral part of HP. We had been reading about > > it for 6 whole books. > > Mike: > I must disagree. AFAIK, House Unity consisted of one song by the > Sorting Hat, rejected out of hand by all concerned at that time. Just > because fandom picked up the flag and carried it on, does not make it > a predominant theme of the books. > > And that mention by the Sorting Hat came in the fifth book, after > Voldemort's return. I didn't see any unity theme cropping up in the > first four books. If I missed it, could some here enlighten me? > > Alla: > > Not me, SOOOOO not me. And thank goodness on that topic I have lots > and lots old posts of mine to show that I argued that house unity is > NOT a predominant theme of HP books, had never been a predominant > theme of HP books and had been fandom invention for the most part > indeed. > > One song and one interview, hehhe. And indeed if one takes a > consistent approach, for which I respect you very much Mike - no > double standards at all, even if disagree with this approach, the > interview does not exist indeed. So, we have one song and that is > the extrapolation that house unity is the predominant theme of HP > books? Not in my opinion. Montavilla47: Not to argue against the ultimate irrelevance of the House Unity theme, because, well, you were right, weren't you? It *was* irrelevant... but it seems to me that there was more to it than one song. There was, to begin with, the story of the Founders, that seemed to me to be an ongoing story. That is, the loss of Slytherin as a founder seemed to me a story that cried out for resolution, especially since the last descendent of Slytherin was such a horror. Also, there was the rallying that took place at the end of GoF, when Dumbledore told Fudge that the Wizarding World needed to unite with other species to fight against Voldemort. While that didn't specifically include all humans, including the Slytherins as humans, it seemed strongly implied to me. Of course, I got it wrong, but that was the moment that really pulled me into the series. It seemed incredibly important--and that it would drive the series from that point onwards. Heh. Looking back on it now, I can't believe what a fool I was--since that moment was contradicted by the whole of OotP (barring the Sorting Hat Song). Instead of reaching out, the Order actually got more and more insular as time went on. Montavilla47 From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 21:59:10 2008 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:59:10 -0000 Subject: Biggest DH dissapointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180377 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: >Leslie41 said: > the biggest > one for me seems to be that the entire plot (or at least a major > subplot) seemed to turn upon a fact that Harry should have discovered > long ago. > > Snape loved Lily. > But I never believed those clues because it made no sense that Snape > loved Lily, because if he had loved her and been such a close friend, > everyone would have known (and they did) and someone would have > mentioned something to Harry. > > As time has gone by I think that this revelation was a really cheap > vicious cheat. Because, really, it's illogical to spring that on us > now, when Harry would have heard it many times before from any number > of people, esp. Sirius and Remus. marion11111agrees: Oh, this bothers me, too. Hogwarts is a pretty small school. If they were good enough friends for enough years that her friends have been asking her why she still hangs around him, then you know it must have been common knowledge. And a scene like the one where he calls her a mudblood would fly through the gossip network in minutes. Wasn't there a group of kids around when that happened? Not just the four mauraders? AND he camps outside the common room prompting one of her girlfriends to come and get her. So, I'm going to assume everybody knew they were buddies at least, even if they didn't know he harbored a secret love. Now the question is, who would be able to mention this to Harry? Any of the teachers who were around at that time would have known (I'm a teacher and don't think we don't know the student gossip), but I suppose it would be unprofessional of them to share past secrets about a fellow staff member - Snape - with a student. Well, except Hagrid has so much trouble being professional, he might hvae slipped some information to Harry Molly and Arthur were already out of Hogwarts at that time. Petunia wouldn't know that Snape and Lily had a falling out and certainly wouldn't have known or cared that Snape was at Hogwarts now and was giving Harry a hard time. That leaves Lupin and Sirius. I'll excuse Sirius because he doesn't seem to have noticed anything at Hogwarts except James. Does he ever talk to Harry about Lily? And Lupin who, at first was a fellow teacher, but later when Harry was so upset about Snape should have said something! But, in general, no one apart from Slughorn mentions Lily to Harry except to talk about her eyes. Honestly, if she was so smart and popular you'd think someone would come up to Harry at the train and say "Oh, are you Harry? Your mum and I were friends in school. She was so much fun. We used to do such and such together, etc." This was the main reason I waffled back and forth on the Snape/Lily theory. I couldn't imagine that people wouldn't mention it along with the whole - "Well, Snape and your dad didn't get along." From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 22:14:54 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:14:54 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180378 > >>Pippin: > > JKR doesn't show us Harry realizing he's prejudiced against > Slytherins, because, IMO, she wants *us* to realize that. She wants > us to be able to reach that conclusion independently. > I agree that Rowling wants us to dislike Slytherins. > > It feels lovely, doesn't it, not to think, just to believe what > you're told? > Betsy Hp: The reason this argument leaves me completely cold is that I've long felt more affinity for Slytherin than Gryffindor. No one had to *tell* me Harry was prejudiced. I picked that up the moment he refused to shake Draco's hand. Actually, from the moment Hagrid whispered an obvious lie into Harry's ear. That Slytherins are treated as the scapegoats and sin-eaters of the WW had been apparent to me the moment Dumbledore pulled that tacky powerplay at the end of PS/SS. That Draco was stronger than Harry ever gave him credit for was apparent to me the second time Draco went up against Harry. Or the moment Draco looked up at a teacher who'd just physically abused and humiliated him in front of the entire student body and still managed to spit out defiance through his pain. I didn't need to be "taught a lesson about prejudice", at least, not in the way you suggest JKR attempted to do so. Harry did. And it never happened. Instead, everything Harry believed about Slytherin was shown to be true. They *were* deserters and betrayers and cowards. As per the books anyway, it was my views of prejudice that lead me astray. I kept expecting a turn around that never happened. So, in the end, I think Harry is a naked emperor; a character on a hero's journey who doesn't go anywhere, doesn't learn anything, and doesn't change his world. His biggest accomplishment, I think, was returning the WW to its status quo, wrapped in the warmth of their comfortable prejudices. At least, that's how I see it. Betsy Hp From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 22:16:04 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:16:04 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ some War and peace spoiler In-Reply-To: <00ae01c84e86$040611f0$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180379 > Shelley: > The only part that is official is what's in print. The dispute here is what > part of print do we consider official- the 7 books series, or the 7 book > series and her web page, or the 7 book series with her web page AND all the > interviews that she's given where she contracticts herself with other > interviews and even with some of the 7 book material??? Huh? Which is the > "official" part? You may live by every word that proceedth out of the mouth > of Rowling, but not I. > > Her works are no different than any other art work. Once it's hung in a > gallery, you can't stand over it 24/7 to tell people what you intended to > paint, and how to look at that canvas. You must step aside and trust that > artwork now has a life on it's own WITHOUT you. She sold her books, ya know? > And we bought them, you know? They are out of her hands, out of her control. > Rowling is still hovering over her creation, telling people how to view it. > That's my criticism of Rowling- that eventually she has to stop being that > doting, protective mama. (thanks va32h for sharing that word picture- yes, I > can date this son by myself and you, mom, please step aside! I have a book > to enjoy without you needing to be there!) Montavilla47: Actually, what she reminds me of (and I'm surprised that no one has brought this up) is Griphook. The idea of Goblin ownership that Griphook describes is sort of similar to copyright ownership. For lots of working artists and writers, what they get paid for is "first run" rights. Which means, a magazine can publish their work once. If they want to reprint it, they need to renegotiate with the author or illustrator. It's probably a bit different in book publishing, but, as I understand it, the book publishers only get the right to print and sell the work--they don't get money from film rights, or sales to other countries, or anything like that. So, the writer can sell their work and keep it, too. But, getting away from the way publishing works back to JKR. She wrote the books, gave them to the readers, and now she wants to control how we interpret them. It's like making a sword, selling it to Godric Gryffindor, and then demanding that anyone else who uses it do so in a specific way and for specific reasons. Although, I actually don't think that JKR is actually trying to control our experience so much as giving it to the understandable enthusiasm of her less nit-picky fans. She probably doesn't even realize that there are people who didn't like the last book, since most of the world is singing her praises. Montavilla47 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 22:53:51 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:53:51 -0000 Subject: That "Love" thing Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180380 Betsy Hp: So I was reading through JKR's interview with Pottercast (and eating my popcorn *g*) when I hit on something that I think explains why the series failed so miserably for me. I think I've said before that I felt like DH had no "there" there. That it was missing a moral core or foundation and so the rest of the series collapsed like a particularly flimsy house of cards. (Again, all of this being my opinion.) I think this is what I was talking about: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/1/2/pottercast-131-j-k-rowling- interview-transcript ************ SU: Can you tell us what was in the Love room? JKR: ...I think what's in the Love room, it's the place where they study what love means. So that room, I believe, would have at its center a kind of fountain or well containing a love potion, a very powerful love potion. [...] So you would see wizards and witches taking it, they would study the effects. The room of course has to be locked. And, you know, again, there's this thread running through the books, what love does, and it raises people to the heights of absolute heroism, (SU: It does.) as in Lily, Harry, Neville, and it also leads them into acts of foolishness and even evil, which is Bellatrix and also Dumbledore. He became foolish, he lost his center, his moral center, when he became infatuated. So that's what it does, that's what makes it dangerous. *********** Betsy Hp: To my mind, this is the most messed up definition of love, and the most messed up way to study love I've ever heard of. Create a false illusion of obsession and lust and *that's* supposed to teach you about love? THAT'S what's in the "love room"?!? And this is what the "good side" is apparently built on: this idea of love as something possesive and weakening and dangerous. To equate the lust of Bellatrix and Dumbledore with love... To my mind it speaks to a basic misunderstanding of what love really is. It explains why Snape was made pathetic and weak by his "love" for Lily. It explains why we never see the Weasleys interact as a loving family would, supporting and building each other up rather than constantly sniping and pulling each other down. Heck, I think it explains some of the weird vocabulary used to try and capture Lily's love for Harry when her ghost appears to encourage Harry to die. It certainly explains the "chest monster" as the analogy of choice for Harry's big romance. I'm not going to suggest that this is JKR's personal view of things, but I think this is what she's comfortable with writing. And I think it goes a long way towards explaining why her "epitome of goodness" is such a cold-hearted bastard. Love is a weakness and a danger, apparently. Of course her good guy avoids it if he can. Betsy Hp PS: I have to mention this gem... "JKR: No! God, it wasn't Pansy Parkinson! I loath that girl. (JN and SU laugh) I don't love Draco but I really dislike her. She's every girl who ever teased me at school, she's the anti-Hermione. I loathe her. Yes, sorry, sidetracked there by my latent bitterness " Hee! No wonder I liked Pansy. :D Betsy Hp From dreamyclaire at hotmail.co.uk Sat Jan 5 16:46:52 2008 From: dreamyclaire at hotmail.co.uk (clairekennyplatt) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:46:52 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: <00c901c84e87$f26cfec0$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180381 > Shelley: > I love this idea!!!. The mirror could serve the role that the > Daily Prophet did- when Hermione read it out loud, it gave the > students inside of Hogwarts key information about what was going > on outside of Hogwarts. The mirror could have brought us in touch > with Luna, Ginny, Neville and some of our other beloved characters > all throughout the book, even though Harry was in a tent in the > middle of nowhere. And, restoring the mirror would have brought > a nod to Sirius's memory, that it finally got used for good- > plotting the end of Voldemort. > DH was so shallow in that it failed to wrap up certain elements. > Restoring the mirror and using it this was would have been a > better ending for that element than merely having it reflect > Albus's brother's eye. Dreamyclaire But If they had restored the mirror how would they have been saved from the Malfoy's dungeon? The mirror restored wouldn't have fitted in the moleskin pouch and would have been taken away from them and then no one would have been able to help them. Also I think the fact that Harry is carrying round a piece of broken mirror which has hurt him at least once is a nod to Sirius - what other use (that Harry knew of) could it have possibly been? From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 5 23:00:42 2008 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (David) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:00:42 -0000 Subject: rewrites.. What Ifs Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180382 I have been wondering about this idea and would like all your inputs in this concept: What if the Sorting Hat placed Harry in Slytherin? I think that Draco and Harry would get along for awhile but he might grow jealous of Harry's popularity after awhile. What relationships might have developed and where would the stories have gone? dragonkeeper From dreamyclaire at hotmail.co.uk Sun Jan 6 00:05:32 2008 From: dreamyclaire at hotmail.co.uk (clairekennyplatt) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:05:32 -0000 Subject: Biggest DH dissapointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180383 As someone who was not very popular at school I can tell you that the popular kids, ie the Maruaders, never believed that the unpopular kids, ie Snape, had a life outside school so paid absolutly no attention to them and what was happening in their life! Snape waiting outside the common room for Lily could be easily explained away by Lily if she so chose. If they where both in the same potions class by the sounds of it no one else would have been in the same league as them, and let's face it you would hardly want to broadcast the fact that you were close friends with a Slytherin in the Gryffindor common room or vice versa. Imagine the reaction of Lucius Malfoy, McNair or Theodore Nott if Snape was to tell anyone in Slytherin he was in love with a Gryffindor! It would have made his life even more unbearable. dreamyclaire From dreamyclaire at hotmail.co.uk Sun Jan 6 00:42:06 2008 From: dreamyclaire at hotmail.co.uk (clairekennyplatt) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:42:06 -0000 Subject: The Slytherins and Cedric, list reaction to DD, and favorite DH moments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180384 Favourite DH moments As a mum Molly Weasley taking on Bellatrix Lestrange and God help the person who was responsible for Fred's death if she ever gets hold of them ! As an other half Ron destroying the horcrux and with it those feelings we all get (unless we're superwomen) in relationships. As a friend there are just too many to mention the hope and faith Harry places in Hermione, Ron and Neville (who I have to say has become one of my favourite charactors in the last few books). As he walks in to the woods ready to die not only to destroy but also in the hopes of protecting all those in the castle from Voldemort is something I hope my friends would do for me should they ever (and I hope they don't) have need to. dreamyclaire From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sun Jan 6 01:04:18 2008 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 11:04:18 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] rewrites.. What Ifs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFC631DE@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 180385 Dragonkeeper: I have been wondering about this idea and would like all your inputs in this concept: What if the Sorting Hat placed Harry in Slytherin? I think that Draco and Harry would get along for awhile but he might grow jealous of Harry's popularity after awhile. What relationships might have developed and where would the stories have gone? Sharon: I agree that's really interesting. There is a lot of fan fiction out there already on this topic. However the only ones I know of are slash Harry/Draco fics, which may not be to your taste. Anyone got any regular recs for this? From va32h at comcast.net Sun Jan 6 01:06:58 2008 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:06:58 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180386 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "clairekennyplatt" wrote: > Dreamyclaire > But If they had restored the mirror how would they have been saved > from the Malfoy's dungeon? The mirror restored wouldn't have fitted > in the moleskin pouch and would have been taken away from them and > then no one would have been able to help them. Also I think the fact > that Harry is carrying round a piece of broken mirror which has hurt > him at least once is a nod to Sirius - what other use (that Harry > knew of) could it have possibly been? > va32h: Oh well that's the fun of rewriting. Because you don't have to have the trio in the Malfoy dungeon. You could have them...captured and held prisoner in the Ministry and have them escape when Harry and say...Dean Thomas overpower a guard then sneak into the Confiscated Wands office and liberate hundreds of other prisoners *and* their wands to boot. Ron's defense of Hermione and anguish over her torture is one of the most touching scenes in DH, so I'd want to keep that, but that could still take place if they were taken to the Ministry. At least it did in my version! va32h From dreamyclaire at hotmail.co.uk Sun Jan 6 00:56:56 2008 From: dreamyclaire at hotmail.co.uk (clairekennyplatt) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:56:56 -0000 Subject: Prime Ministers & secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180387 > Barry > As I recall, Prime Ministers don't report to their fellows when > they are visited by the Minister of Magic or other wizards because > they would be laughed at. Britain had a longish period of Irish > terrorists well before 9/11. Without saying why, the PM could > easily ask for more protection, including all sorts of spy > devices. The next wizardly manifestation would find themselves > surrounded by automatic weapons. I'm not sure that this would > affect the narration. It is another area though where the author > is blind to the hi-tech world in which HP was written. Supposedly > set in the 90s, it feels as if it's set in WW2. dreamyclaire: I think you have missed three things that affect this otherwise perfectly reasonable statement: 1. Those things don't work around magic all the hi tech spy cameras in the world aren't going to do you much good if they don't work 2. The painting of a man in a wig that is unmovable would warn the minister for magic if there were other people in the room and this is the Prime Minister not the President of the United States, Gordon Brown has 1 police man outside his door and 2 at the end of the road he doesn't have a huge squad of bodyguards that could hang around him day and night until the Minister of Magic poped by again and finally and probably most importantly: 3. The Minister for Magic would have had no need to see most Prime Ministers more then once, and so therefor most would probably think they had had a bit to much to drink during the celebrations and had imagined it ! From cottell at dublin.ie Sun Jan 6 01:57:41 2008 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:57:41 -0000 Subject: rewrites.. What Ifs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180388 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David" wrote: > > I have been wondering about this idea and would like all your > inputs in this concept: What if the Sorting Hat placed Harry > in Slytherin? If this had happened, I'm willing to think that an interesting story would have ensued, but it would be very different from what exists. The entire relationship with Snape would have been different, and Harry would probably have died at the end of CoS, unable to summon Gryffindor's Sword, though perhaps he would have been able to command the Basilisk. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 02:19:04 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 02:19:04 -0000 Subject: Occlumency lessons WAS: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Charact In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180389 Alla: > > I mean I vehemently argued in the past that Snape could be > > deliberately opening his mind to Voldemort, but in light of all the > > information would he really do that? > > > > How exactly was this information corrected? > > > > Annemehr: > > Didn't Dumbledore wrap that up in his OoP wrap-up speech in ch. 37? >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ > > So, one answer we got: Occlumency lessons did in fact open Harry's > mind further to Voldemort, and that's why DD wouldn't give them. And > when the scar link was open to Voldemort, there was pain. > Alla: Well, no not really. Not to my knowledge I mean. If it was answered to your satisfaction, that's good. I mean I said many times that OOP is the book I know the worst, but Dumbledore's speech is one of the few parts of it which I read and reread quite a few times. Basically I cannot interpret "to open your mind further" as the fact that it was necessarily opened ONLY during the lessons. I intepret it as it could have been opened before lessons started by the connection between Harry and Voldemort or as we know between pieces of soul or whatever that was. I mean, maybe it WAS opened during the lessons, but to me it is ambiguous and that was my whole point. JMO, Alla From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 02:46:29 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 02:46:29 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180390 > Betsy Hp: > Exactly. The truth about Snape has no real affect on Harry. > Instead of DH being about their relationship (a relationship I > *thought* had been shaping the series) Mike: This was a real problem in the series. The obvious antagonist was Voldemort. His appearance in PS/SS was creapy and scary, but not fully realized. We knew he wasn't done for, but he wasn't powerful enough to not be overcome by an 11-year-old Harry. Then he's invisible for two books. The build up to his reincarnation in GoF was both inevitable and a terrifying thought that it could happen. Who wasn't terrified (for Harry) of the Voldemort in the Graveyard? Likewise, who didn't feel a terrible sense of foreboding for Snape when Dumbledore asked him if he was prepared? Harry had escaped mostly through luck, and here Snape was going back into the lion's den. Voldemort was at his scariest back then. Then two more books of nothing. Yeah, I know, Harry gets the visions in OotP and there is the battle in the MoM Atrium, but those were more like cameos than in your face scary. By the time we got to DH, I wasn't that scared of Voldemort, for Harry. Chapter One of DH reiterates Voldemort's cruelty and the DE's obsequious servitude, but I had stopped thinking of him as this all powerful being. He did have a few new tricks up his sleeve - flying, the Nagini!Bagshot gag me moment - but he just wasn't that scary anymore. In fact, he exhibited a level of ignorance that reduced his build up to this ultimate villian into a mustache twirling Snidely Whiplash. Was that intentional by JKR? I can't say, but if it was, it caused Voldemort and thus the story to lose some of it's lustre for me. And that was a shame. > Betsy Hp: > But because Harry no longer cared much about Snape or Draco, it > meant that he no longer cared about Slytherin. Mike: Yes, Slytherin had naturally replaced the mostly absent Voldemort as the main antagonist for Harry. How could they not? Then all of a sudden, in DH, Slytherin doesn't matter any more. We're back to worrying about Voldemort and his Horcruxes. It doesn't flow, not after we'd been treated to so much Snape, Draco and even Narcissa and Bellatrix. Sure, they're all tied to LV, but their characters were fleshed out so much more, in the here and now, than his was. Again, was this a mistake? It feels like one, to me. > Betsy Hp: > I honestly think that this sidelining of all things Slytherin was > a massive story-telling mistake on JKR's part. She'd put too much > into making them the big antagonist for Harry to suddenly say they > didn't matter. Which I think is made apparent by all these > attempts to ret-con them back into a place of importance. Mike: I agree with you Betsy, again. I expected so much more out of or directed towards Snape and Draco. The reduction of Snape to a footnote and what felt like the dropping of Draco's story altogether was my major disappointment in DH. I still liked the book overall, I knew that Harry-Voldemort was *the* big story that JKR was telling and she did a good job in that respect. As I said, I wish LV had remained the scary guy he was in GoF, but that was really the fault of the two previous books as much as it was a problem with DH. I also had no delusions that Slytherin was anything other than the bad guy house, so I wasn't looking for any redemption. (I don't mean anyone here was delusional, heh, I mean I was certain in my mind what JKR was doing with Slytherin.) But that didn't mean I expected, as Betsy put it, "all things Slytherin" to fall off the table in favor of following Harry's story. > Betsy Hp: > Heh. In some ways, I think the subject line best reflects my > thoughts as I read DH: "Slytherin! Come back!" Mike: My sentiments would be more along the lines of: Slytherin, go away!, as in, I never liked you guys and I still don't. But she shouldn't have built up their story for six books if she was going to just kick them off the Hogwarts Express before it pulled into Hogsmeade Station. Mike From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 03:48:30 2008 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 03:48:30 -0000 Subject: Occlumency lessons WAS: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Charact In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180391 > > Annemehr: > > So, one answer we got: Occlumency lessons did in fact open > Harry's > > mind further to Voldemort, and that's why DD wouldn't give them. > And > > when the scar link was open to Voldemort, there was pain. > > > > > Alla: > > Well, no not really. Not to my knowledge I mean. If it was answered > to your satisfaction, that's good. I mean I said many times that OOP > is the book I know the worst, but Dumbledore's speech is one of the > few parts of it which I read and reread quite a few times. > > Basically I cannot interpret "to open your mind further" as the fact > that it was necessarily opened ONLY during the lessons. I intepret > it as it could have been opened before lessons started by the > connection between Harry and Voldemort or as we know between pieces > of soul or whatever that was. > > I mean, maybe it WAS opened during the lessons, but to me it is > ambiguous and that was my whole point. > > JMO, > > Alla > Annemehr: Oh, I completely agree that Harry's mind wasn't ONLY opened during lessons. We saw Harry's repeated dreams of the DoM door since the beginning of OoP. But, Harry complained that Snape was making it *worse.* And then Dumbledore said that Occlumency lessons opened Harry's mind *further.* I take that as confirmation that the mind/soul bit link was stronger as a consequence of the lessons. If this seems ambiguous to you, what other possible meaning do you take from Dumbledore's words? Or do you just think DD may have been mistaken? And just to be clear, judging by Harry's symptoms during OoP, I assert that the effect of opening Harry's mind happened during the lessons themselves, but also lingered afterward, which is why he generally had more symptoms all the time after the lessons started than he did before. Annemehr, supposing that this strengthening of the mind-tie between LV and Harry was due to the soul-bit being lodged right next to Harry's thoroughly legilimensed brain, and wondering what kind of story it might have been had the soul-bit lodged in a scar over his heart instead... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 03:56:38 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 03:56:38 -0000 Subject: Respect / Unforgettable moments LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180392 Marianne: This bit about Snape is very interesting to me because it echoes what I felt at the end of OoP after the death of Sirius. I felt the same sense of loss at a life (yes, I, too know he's fictional!) that had not been truly lived and that was also a great waste of potential. (What do you know - another parallel between Snape and Sirius!) I had the same wish that JKR had let Sirius survive as Carol had about Snape. So, after OoP, I had a definite lessening of interest in the remaining books. Alla: I totally get this, I do. As I said many times I desperately wanted Harry to survive and would have been upset if he would not. I WAS upset after Sirius' death, so many of the scenarios I imagined went off the window right there, but I guess what saved the interest for me was that I was so very interested in Harry's journey, so I just had to readjust my mental picture and realize that JKR is not very interested in keeping adults alive. I do tell you that I started seeking AU stories since OOP for sure ? that how I satisfied my cravings for happy endings for Sirius and Harry together. I simply realized that this was not a story JKR was interested in saying. But I totally sympathize. zanooda: He would be a different character, that's all :-). He wouldn't be worse, and he wouldn't be better - just different, with different motivations and life story. And if I can't see this story in the book, if it's just something the writer said after the book was published - here it becomes confusing to me. Sexual orientation doesn't mean this much in DD's case, of course, but still, I feel that I react differently to some scenes in the book, and there is a strange mixture of old DD and new DD in my head :-). I'm glad that Susan and others got their wish, but I personally would have preferred not to get this outside-the-book piece of information on DD. Alla: But see again, I am just not sure how he will be different character. I mean besides the fact that he will be interested in men instead of women. I mean right now I am trying primarily figure out what would change for you so much in case of Dumbledore. We already decided that for Andrey it would change things, yes, but again only in his love life, no? He would still be that intelligent man, who is struggling over finding his place in society, who wants to serve his society better, who wants to help his serves, etc. Who is a patriot, who is a brave soldier, etc, etc. Nothing of that effect would change, no? Now we have Dumbledore and we know, well pretty much nothing about his love life before DH. She says he was gay in the interview, so all that one can do IF and only if one wishes to is to add this little information about Dumbledore to their mental picture, no? Suppose you added this info to your mental picture of Dumbledore and again I am by no means saying that you are obligated to do so. What changed in Dumbledore as you knew him in the books? He would be still making mistakes in his youth, wanting to dominate over muggles, he would still be that manipulative, secretive leader of the resistance and the headmaster. He would still be struggling to reconcile his affection for Harry with his plan. What changed so much? Why would your mental picture become so confusing? I mean, I think that if we for example learned that Dumbledore and Minerva are married, I can understand that announcement causing the picture to blur, but as it stands now, I just do not get it. I mean, again I understand confusion but only to a small degree. Again, I certainly would prefer this information to be in the books, but I am just not seeing how this information per se would cause you to look at DD in such different light. Oh, oh and another thing ? while I am certainly liking this reveal, I did not look for it or anything. I would LOVE for Sirius or Lupin to be revealed as gays or Snape, heheh. Dumbledore? That's great, but my first reaction was along the Yes, so? Lines. Zannooda: Take care, dear Allochka! Happy New Year! Alla: Same to you :) From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 6 03:58:07 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 03:58:07 -0000 Subject: That "Love" thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180393 > Betsy Hp > > PS: I have to mention this gem... > > "JKR: No! God, it wasn't Pansy Parkinson! I loath that girl. (JN and > SU laugh) I don't love Draco but I really dislike her. She's every > girl who ever teased me at school, she's the anti-Hermione. I loathe > her. Yes, sorry, sidetracked there by my latent bitterness " > > Hee! No wonder I liked Pansy. :D Potioncat: Is it possible that JKR suffers from multiple personality disorder? How can she consider Pansy to be horrbile and reflects "every girl who ever teased me" yet be the same author who turned James and Sirius into heroes? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Jan 6 04:15:13 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:15:13 -0000 Subject: That "Love" thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180394 > > Betsy Hp > > > > PS: I have to mention this gem... > > > > "JKR: No! God, it wasn't Pansy Parkinson! I loath that girl. (JN and > > SU laugh) I don't love Draco but I really dislike her. She's every > > girl who ever teased me at school, she's the anti-Hermione. I loathe > > her. Yes, sorry, sidetracked there by my latent bitterness " > > > > Hee! No wonder I liked Pansy. :D > > > Potioncat: > Is it possible that JKR suffers from multiple personality disorder? How > can she consider Pansy to be horrbile and reflects "every girl who ever > teased me" yet be the same author who turned James and Sirius into > heroes? Magpie: It does show how completely personal it all is. Probably she just doesn't really have bad memories or associations with guys like James and Sirius. Ironically, she did also create a character who pinged me immediately as "every girl who ever teased me" in the book too--only it was HBP!Ginny and not Pansy. That's a lot more frustrating. But anyway, that's why I wouldn't expect it to be consistent. I can't stand the second incarnation of Ginny, but I like Draco. Go figure. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 6 04:32:27 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:32:27 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ som... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180395 > Sandy: > > Okay, I'm going to jump in on this too. I am going to agree with Shelley's assessment of the Dumbledore statement in that it was the most obvious one, made up of whole cloth and out of the blue, for what purposes I am still trying to determine. There was absolutely nothing in canon to point us in this direction. Potioncat: I didn't get the feel that she made this up later. From her wording, I thought it was either 1) from the beginning she pictured DD as gay or 2) as the books developed she began to think of him as gay. We know JKR created detailed back stories for many characters, even very minor ones. We also know that she had some characters and storylines at the ready, that never made it to print. I don't think every detail had to make it to print; it still had impact as how JKR wrote the character. Yeah, if it had been in the book, we readers would have experienced the story differently---and there would have been a wide range of differences as what meaning readers gave that detail. Severely Sigune wrote an interesting essay supporting DD as gay, using literary "signals". If anyone's interested, I'll look for a link. Sandy: But the conflicting post DH statements she gave that irritated me the most, and caused me lose respect for her, was the Trio's professions. Potioncat: I find that very frustrating, too. And I agree that some of her comments do not seem thought out or even honest. I mean, honest in the sense that she really had an answer. JustCarol made some good points along that line. Sandy: A week or so after the book was released I watched, and taped, an interview she did with one of the major USA networks, and can't remember which it was. The very next day she did a live chat on the internet, was asked the same question, but this time she gave a different answer. Potioncat: If I'm thinking of the same interview, I agree that was a big mistake, which makes no sense at all. And if it was the same interview, it wasn't live--the network one, I mean. I don't know how long before it had been filmed, but it wasn't live. So there may have been more time than one day between the network interview and the live chat. Still---Ron's career was a big mistake. Did we ever find out which one was correct? (I was sure he would be a Healer!) Sandy: She had also changed the statement about Luna. In the interview Luna was not married, in the live chat Luna was married to Whoever Scamander. Potioncat: In the interview I saw, she was asked if Luna and Neville got together. She seemed surprised and said that was a good idea, or something like that, but didn't indicate who they had married if anyone. But I don't recall her saying that Luna hadn't married. I tried to find a link for the Dateline interview that I think you may be referring to. I have a link to the actual video of it----I think. But I couldn't find a transcript. I'd like to suggest that when possible, we post a link to the interview being discussed, then paste that link into each reply so that everyone can find the exact quotes. Potioncat, who wasn't any good at cutting and pasting in Kindergarten, and is just catching on to it in cyberspace. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 04:46:24 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:46:24 -0000 Subject: Occlumency lessons WAS: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Charact In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180396 > Annemehr: > > Oh, I completely agree that Harry's mind wasn't ONLY opened during > lessons. We saw Harry's repeated dreams of the DoM door since the > beginning of OoP. > > But, Harry complained that Snape was making it *worse.* And then > Dumbledore said that Occlumency lessons opened Harry's mind > *further.* I take that as confirmation that the mind/soul bit link > was stronger as a consequence of the lessons. If this seems > ambiguous to you, what other possible meaning do you take from > Dumbledore's words? Or do you just think DD may have been mistaken? Alla: If I remember correctly back in the days I argued that Dumbledore did not know this piece of information - what Snape did and what not during occlumency - now I do not know. But actually I reread the passage again and now think that it can be interpreted that if Dumbledore would have taught Harry, then his mind could have been opened further, not that any Occlumency teacher would have. Does that make any sense to you? I tend to think up wierd and often incorrect things when I am tired. I know one thing - this paragraph definitely is ambiguous to me. From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 04:54:25 2008 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:54:25 -0000 Subject: Biggest DH dissapointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180397 >dreamyclaire: > As someone who was not very popular at school I can tell you > that the popular kids, ie the Maruaders, never believed that > the unpopular kids, ie Snape, had a life outside school so paid > absolutly no attention to them and what was happening in their > life! > > Snape waiting outside the common room for Lily could be easily > explained away by Lily if she so chose. If they where both in > the same potions class by the sounds of it no one else would > have been in the same league as them, and let's face it you > would hardly want to broadcast the fact that you were close > friends with a Slytherin in the Gryffindor common room or vice > versa. Imagine the reaction of Lucius Malfoy, McNair or Theodore > Nott if Snape was to tell anyone in Slytherin he was in love > with a Gryffindor! It would have made his life even more > unbearable. > marion11111: Yes, but Lily was popular. JKR described her as a very popular girl. In a school with only 40 or so kids per grade. That's the size of one classroom in many city high schools now. A greasy little nerd hanging around a popular girl would draw attention to himself as Snape obviously did. The levicorpus/pantsing episode seemed to me to be more about tearing down someone who Lily might still pay attention to than just bullying a loner. Really, this is why it worked better for me when I thought that Snape had a secret crush and Lily had no idea who he was and that James picked on him because he (James) was a bully. Once the lingering-childhood-friendship theory came out, it became harder to imagine. But even before DH, I was baffled by the lack of information given to Harry about Lily. Whatever happened to Lily's girlfriends? No godmother for Harry? I guess it had to be that way to make the story work, but it seemed odd. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 6 05:02:05 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:02:05 -0000 Subject: Biggest DH dissapointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180398 > marion11111:> > But even before DH, I was baffled by the lack of information given to Harry about Lily. > Whatever happened to Lily's girlfriends? No godmother for Harry? I guess it had to be that > way to make the story work, but it seemed odd. Potioncat: JKR explained that the baptism (did they call it that?) was rushed. Perhaps none of her friends could be told the secret location. Any way, DD did a pretty good job of taking Harry out of the WW for all those years, then he was away at Hogwarts. Who would have the opportunity to contact him? The WW is a secretive place--something that was noticed long before DH. The bit that caught my attention was James's and Lily's graves and the great monument and the protected destroyed house. What a WW tourist attraction and no one ever mentioned it to Harry! From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 05:37:48 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:37:48 -0000 Subject: Biggest DH dissapointment - Lily and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180399 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > Sirius and Remus. They certainly would have known > that Lily and Snape were best friends, even if they didn't think > that Snape loved her. And everyone could see that he did. > Everyone. > Why on earth would Remus and Sirius hold back something like that? Hi, Leslie! I'm afraid I can't offer you a really convincing theory, but I have a few ideas that you may find usable :-). 1. Bart has a point, Lily and Severus's friendship ended in their 5th year, but she started going out with James only in their 7th year, so it's not like Sev and James were actual rivals, fighting for Lily's attentions, and she chose James over Severus. By the time she chose James, Lily's friendship with Snape was long over. Sirius and Lupin didn't say anything to Harry because for them the two things are not connected: there was an entire school year between them, a year when possibly Lily dated some other boy(s) - surely such a beautiful girl would have had more admirers than just James and Severus :-). 2. Another thing: I don't think that many people at school knew that Snape was in love with Lily. It's not like he sang serenades under her window :-). I believe he was very discrete about his true feelings. He certainly was smart enough not to admit them to Lily, knowing that she didn't feel the same way and he would only scare her away if he told her. He was waiting patiently, hoping that maybe she would come to love him at some point (this is JMO, of course). I think that only very few people could find out that Snape had more than friendly feelings for Lily. I don't know if she herself knew ? girls usually can feel these things, but I'm not sure. James guessed, I think, and this was one of the reasons of his dislike for Snape. I don't believe that others knew, they just thought Lily and Snape were friendly, but parted ways at some point. 3. You will probably disagree with me, but I believe that Lily and Sev called each other "best friends" more out of habit than anything else. Being in the different houses, they just couldn't spend enough time together to stay best friends. Harry and Ron *are* best friends ? they go to the same classes, they eat at the same table, they sleep in the same dorm, they are practically inseparable. How often could Lily and Snape meet? I don't know, they might have one or two classes together (not every day), they could meet during the lunch break, or after classes (in the library, for instance) ? but again, not every day, I think. I believe they saw a lot of each other at the beginning, but, as the time passed, he got his Slytherin friends, she got her Gryffindor friends, and they drifted farther and farther apart. It was easier for them to meet at home, during holidays, but I think that at school other kids didn't see them as *that* close, just friendly. Maybe some kid would ask "What's the deal with Evans and this Slytherin geek? What does she have to do with him?" and the answer would be "Oh, I heard they just know each other from before school, they are neighbors or something". To sum up: Black and Lupin could have known that "maybe" Snape was at some point in love with Lily, but only "maybe" ? there is no way they could be sure. Maybe they didn't even know Lily and Snape were "best friends" ? they believed that those two just used to be on good terms (being neighbors outside school), but stopped to be so long before James and Lily started dating. I'm not sure you will be satisfied with my answer (I am not exactly satisfied myself :-), but it's the best I can do :-). zanooda From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net Sun Jan 6 05:38:10 2008 From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:38:10 -0000 Subject: The Point of Gay Dumbledore; was Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180400 > Susan: > Third, (and I am obviously NOT in the majority HERE), I think > it's great that Professor Dumbledore is gay. > Sandy: > I don't share that feeling, but only because it wasn't written that way. Had > he been written as gay it wouldn't have bothered me, although I can't say I > could have seen the point in writing him that way, but absolutely nothing gave > me the impression that he was. Pippin Fowler: Do we need a point in order to have a gay wizard? I think not. Dumbledore being gay does not need to make a point any more than Lucius being blond, Lily having memorable green eyes, or the Weasleys not using an effective birth control method. However, here are a variety of possible points, none of which I necessarily think were a point of Dumbledore being gay: - to show that the WW, like the Muggle world, includes gay people - to give gay readers another connection to a character - to annoy readers who dislike or hate gay people - to give some of Dumbledore's fashion choices a stereotype to fit into - to include a positive gay role model (this may not work for Slytherin readers) - to explain why Dumbledore never had a female love interest - to explain a bit more why several colliding circumstances of Dumbledore's youth led to major mistakes (e.g., Albus's family relationships would have been different had Grindelwald never appeared) - to help readers identify and question all of their assumptions about all of the characters - to make readers wonder which other characters were gay, lesbian, and bisexual (this may not work for readers who 'know' they don't know anyone who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual) - to make readers (unless I'm the only one) wonder about other sexuality-related things, such as how odd it might feel to drink Polyjuice and temporarily possess body parts of the other sex, or how instructive it could be to be one of the other sex for awhile--to experience firsthand how being male or female may change others' perceptions and behaviour - to confirm his sexuality, for those readers who were already thinking Albus Dumbledore was gay, especially after reading DH - to draw more publicity for the books or the author - to make news about the books or the author - to draw more commentary about the books or the author - to show that JKR has a mischievous streak - to promote, by example, not just tolerance of gay wizards, but acceptance, honor, and love--similar to the author's other messages about acceptance for other 'different' or 'outcast' characters and magical beasts Or as Rebecca Traister at Salon put it: There's a very cheerful side to Rowling's decision to directly address Dumbledore's homosexuality. Throughout the series, she has been diligent not only in her narrative exploration of bigotry and intolerance, but also in her commitment to the inclusion of characters of different races, cultures, classes and degrees of physical beauty. It would, in fact, have been a glaring omission had none of the inhabitants of her world been homosexual. http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/10/23/dumbledore/ Incidentally, this Salon commentary helped me realize something. I enjoy hearing additional details from JKR about her characters' history, but it annoys me when she tells what her characters' futures are. If there is more to tell about the characters, please be still and go write another book! I dare say a major--if not the major--attraction of this group was speculating about what might happen next, and JKR has taken away something from us (and all readers) by continuing to tell tales beyond the conclusion of DH. Let us solve the many remaining mysteries and look into the future in our own way. Pippin Fowler From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 05:47:03 2008 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:47:03 -0000 Subject: Biggest DH dissapointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180401 > > > marion11111:> > > But even before DH, I was baffled by the lack of information given to > Harry about Lily. > > Whatever happened to Lily's girlfriends? No godmother for Harry? I > guess it had to be that > > way to make the story work, but it seemed odd. > > > Potioncat: > JKR explained that the baptism (did they call it that?) was rushed. > Perhaps none of her friends could be told the secret location. marion11111: I also considered that perhaps joining the Order requires a person to cut all ties with outsiders. James got to keep his friends because they joined too. Again, before DH, I speculated that Lily worked in the Dept. Of Mysteries and would have had co-worker friends, but if they all just lived off James' money (didn't JKR say that recently?) that would isolate them even before going into hiding. > > Any way, DD did a pretty good job of taking Harry out of the WW for all > those years, then he was away at Hogwarts. Who would have the > opportunity to contact him? > marion11111: I was thinking other mothers of students might approach him at the train and say they knew Lily and how missed she was or families would certainly discuss the famous Harry Potter (especially that first year) during vacations and you'd think someone would come back to school and say "My mum remembers your mum and she said your mum was really smart or popular or nice or something." But, as you say, the WW does operate differently. And that kind of scene just takes up pages and doesn't advance the story. > The WW is a secretive place--something that was noticed long before DH. > marion11111: And Hogwarts under Dumbledore is even more so. > The bit that caught my attention was James's and Lily's graves and the > great monument and the protected destroyed house. What a WW tourist > attraction and no one ever mentioned it to Harry! > marion11111: yes, I raised my eyebrows at the one, too. Young teens aren't always tactful and someone could easily have blurted out "Oh, you're Harry Potter?! We saw the House At Godric's Hollow last year when we visited my cousins!" From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Sun Jan 6 04:57:07 2008 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:57:07 -0000 Subject: Prime Ministers & secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180402 > dreamyclaire: > > I think you have missed three things that affect this otherwise > perfectly reasonable statement: > > 1. Those things don't work around magic all the hi tech spy > cameras in the world aren't going to do you much good if they > don't work As soon as hi-tech stopped working, the cavalry would appear. Spy tech that doesn't work tells a lot to people who monitor them. > 2. Gordon Brown has 1 police man outside his door and 2 at > the end of the road he doesn't have a huge squad of bodyguards > that could hang around him day and night until the Minister of > Magic poped by again He might seem to have one bobby but my point is that he could bring in a regiment. Bearskins? Beerskins? > and finally and probably most importantly: > > 3. The Minister for Magic would have had no need to see most > Prime Ministers more then once, and so therefor most would > probably think they had had a bit to much to drink during > the celebrations and had imagined it ! > Most, perhaps. But we're talking Harry Potter time, 1990s. PMs aren't such fools as JKR makes they out to be. They would want to be on their guard - if only from their deputy PMs. Barry From va32h at comcast.net Sun Jan 6 06:25:33 2008 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 06:25:33 -0000 Subject: Biggest DH dissapointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180403 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > The bit that caught my attention was James's and Lily's graves and the > great monument and the protected destroyed house. What a WW tourist > attraction and no one ever mentioned it to Harry! > va32h: Hermione never read about it in a book? Although she did say back in PS that she'd read about Harry in "Great Wizarding Events of the 20th Century." Still - you'd think she'd have said during the camping trip "yes I know you want to go to Godric's Hollow and see the memorial to your parents but I just don't think it's safe..." From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 06:41:04 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 06:41:04 -0000 Subject: Occlumency lessons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180404 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Annemehr: > > > > Oh, I completely agree that Harry's mind wasn't ONLY opened > > during lessons. We saw Harry's repeated dreams of the DoM > > door since the beginning of OoP. > > > > But, Harry complained that Snape was making it *worse.* > > And then Dumbledore said that Occlumency lessons opened > > Harry's mind *further.* ... > > > > Alla: > > If I remember correctly back in the days I argued that > Dumbledore did not know this piece of information - what > Snape did and what not during occlumency - now I do not > know. > > But actually I reread the passage again and now think that > it can be interpreted that if Dumbledore would have taught > Harry, then his mind could have been opened further, ... > > Does that make any sense to you? I tend to think up wierd > and often incorrect things when I am tired. > > I know one thing - this paragraph definitely is ambiguous > to me. > bboyminn: I think Dumbledore thought when the cause was great enough Snape and Harry could set aside their differences and work toward a common goal. BOY WAS HE WRONG! Lessons, especially with Snape have the effect of enraging and frustrating Harry. The very emotions he need to control to protect himself were being inflamed by the humiliation of Snape digging into his deepest and most private memories. So, regardless of the actually Occlumency lesson, it was that they were being taught by Snape that inflamed the sitiation and made it impossible for Harry to effectively practice Occlumency. Also, I think Snape tends to rely on the 'brute force' method of teaching. Some one with more patience and much to Snape's discredit, someone with more of a sense of subtly, and Harry would have been a fair Occlumens. Note Harry is not completely without talent in this area. One of the problems was that Harry was just as interested as Snape in seeing these memories come wandering by, but when a truly private memory began to appear, Harry cut it off immediately. If Snape had been a better and less emotionally involved teacher he would have picked up on that and built on it. Instead, he just used it as an excuse to bully Harry even more. Also, note that Voldemort emotions, thoughts, feeling, and sense of excitement are also rising during this time. That combined with the other frustration confronting Harry (Umbridge, Cho, Quidditch, etc...) and Harry was, in my opinion, emotionally near the breaking point. None of this is helping at all, and it all explains why Harry appears to be getting worse at blocking access to his mind instead of getting better. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 6 08:17:24 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:17:24 -0000 Subject: HouseElves/Pettigrew/Shunpike/Bertha/Slytherin/Rewrites/Economic/Carol, Carol Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180405 Carol wrote in : << I'm going to do a Catlady-style post here, combining wholly unrelated points that I want to respond to. >> Once upon a time, the List Elves used to urge everyone to 'combine posts' for the sake of list volume. Having gotten into the habit, I can't seem to break it. Maybe if I limited to my posts to no more topics than would fit in the subject line, more people would read them. Carol wrote in : << . Apparently, both Hermione and JKR are forgetting that when Kreacher (n "u") originally went to visit Narcissa over the Christmas holiday, Bellatrix was still in prison. >> Thank you for reminding me that Bellatrix was not there to interfere with Narcissa's scheming charm when Kreachy made his first and longest visit to her, and she would have had plenty of time to charm him without Bella interfering. I think Kreachy visited Malfoy Manor several more times, for shorter visits, after Bellatrix's arrival there. Because there must have been some means of communication between the DEs and Kreachy, or else he wouldn't have known WHEN to lure Sirius away and deceive Harry, and it seems to me that having him visit Narcissa at scheduled times to receive his latest orders would be the most workable means. Maybe Narcissa locked Bella in a closet during those visits. Or, Kreachy did *adore* Miss Bellatrix; maybe he *liked* for her to yell things like 'You stupid House Elf! Iron your hands twice!' Hey, maybe the way Narcissa was just lovely to Kreachy was to shout with joy: "Finally, a House Elf to replace the one my idiot husband lost! Oh, Kreachy, there's so much work here that needs you to do. It's been over 2 years since anyone washed a dish around here." (Sorry, Steve bboyminn, I agree with you that "Why are you here?" is a more likely reaction than "Clean the toilet", but I suddenly was imagining Kreachy's idea of 'just lovely'.) A_svirn wrote in : << I am saying that from purely human point of view it is impossible to treat your own slave with respect, because owning him or her is in itself disrespectful. >> That depends on the what 'respect' means, or on what Respect is. Perhaps the list has gotten slow enough that such abstract and OT discussions will be allowed. << How it is translated into elvish way of thinking is a different matter. Perhaps he would think that kicks and slaps are the expression of respect and affection, but we know better, don't we? >> Maybe I agree with you that all the wizards who kick and slap House Elves are expressing chastisement and probably anger, although perhaps some say that corporal punishment is necessary when training House Elves to do a new job, just as parents claim that corporal punishment of their children is a result rather than a contradiction of their love for the child. But going OT, in the real world there are people who are literal masochists, who literally get off on physical pain, in some cases so much that they *pay* people to whip them or beat them. If a person gets off on being kicked and slapped, and hiser partner does it on request in order to give himer pleasure, then it may be indeed the expression of affection. Dillgravy wrote in : << how in the heck Peter Pettigrew was sorted into Griffyndor. I don't think he showed an ounce of bravery - exemplifying cowardice in every situation he was in. >> I could never be brave enough to cut off my own hand with a knife. Carol wrote in : << As for Pettigrew, I think he was the Muggle-born DE that JKR hinted at in an interview (unless she was referring to Stan Shunpike). >> I also think Pettigrew was the lone Muggle-born DE. I suppose there's some room for someone to argue that wizarding secrecy would prevent the Ministry from sending an Order of Merlin, First Class along with Peter's finger to his mother if she were a Muggle. Me, I think parents and siblings and spouses of wizards are allowed to know the secret. Do you think that Shunpike was a DE? I had taken it for granted that he was under Imperius. Do you think that Shunpike was Muggle-born? If so, he wasn't fond of his Muggle relatives: "Don' listen properly, do they? Don' look properly either. Never notice nuffink, they don'." If Pettigrew were Muggle-born, his special circumstance that led LV to allow him to join the DEs was that he was the Potters' Secret Keeper. If Shunpike was Muggle-born and if Shunpike was a DE, what was his special circumstance? Kemper wrote in : << I was under the impression that Baby!Mort already existed prior to Bertha. My thought is that Peter impregnated (physically, not by petri dish) Nagini. Vapor!Mort used Dark Magic to break Nature's separation of species to possess one of Nagini's eggs. Ick! Peter ick!!! ::throws up in mouth... swallows:: yughk >> I suppose that's disgusting enough, but here is GoF: "But his journey back to me was not smooth, was it, Wormtail? For, hungry one night, on the edge of the very forest where he had hoped to find me, he foolishly stopped at an inn for some food ... and whom should he meet there, but one Bertha Jorkins, a witch from the Ministry of Magic? "Now see the way that fate favours Lord Voldemort. This might have been the end of Wormtail, and of my last hope for regeneration. But Wormtail - displaying a presence of mind I would never have expected of him - convinced Bertha Jorkins to accompany him on a night-time stroll. He overpowered her ... he brought her to me." To me that sounds as if Pettigrew captured Bertha before he arrived at LV, so there was no LV-Pettigrew activity soon before Bertha. Alla wrote in : << To me it is clear that she showed that Slytherin is not all bad through individual stories. So she left it for us to fill in. To me it makes no difference whether they came or not, truly. I still think that their ideology is disgusting and dilution of such ideology is a good thing, but they are not all bad as individuals and here we go - some of them came. And of course Phineas' words as some people remarked make little or no sense if they did not. To me anyways. >> This is a forbidden "I agree" post. Steve bboyminn wrote in : << What bothers me, and what I would like JKR to clear up, is that she opened the concept of the Houses joining together, then never followed through on it. I needed just the briefest reference to one student who saw Voldemort in charge as a bad thing. But it has to be a student. We have Slughorn and Snape as 'good Slytherins', but i needed a student, just one. Now, I propose that any student against Voldemort was against him for very Slytherinish reason. I don't expect altruistic Gryffindorish motivations. >> I'm not sure that altruism is a Gryffindor trait. Chivalry is supposed to be a Gryffindor trait, and chivalry is supposed to involve protecting the weak, but it allows one to screw over one's equals as much as one wants. I don't think Rowling ever intended the concept of the four Houses joining together, only three Houses joining together. I think when the Sorting Hat urged all four Houses to be in harmony as ' pillars four, Had once held up our school', that was the story getting out of her control. Because the Potter oeuvre was not merely published but written as a serial, neither she nor her editor could pause at the end and go back to remove unwanted false clues. It's a pity because I WANTED the four Houses to get together. Even without the four Houses getting together, I, too, wanted a student. I wanted Theo Nott to slap Pansy down: "Sit down, Pansy! Shut up! You're a fool if you expect the Dark Lord to keep his word, or your pure blood to keep you safe. My father was wounded in his service and he left him to die! Just recently he killed a dozen loyal, pureblooded Death Eaters just because he was in a rage at some bad news. Draco, it happened at your house, tell her about it!" Then Draco, very unhappy to be put on the spot, says that there is no safety anywhere except in quick wits, strong wand, and family, and he's not going to do anything to motivate the Dark Lord to harm his mother. Theo can snap back: "I have no one left! I'm staying here to fight him. Better to die getting revenge for my father than thoughtlessly crushed like a bug." Steve bboyminn wrote in : << I'm proposing that we each re-write some small aspect or scene in the books the way we think it should have gone, or at least could have gone. >> I wanted Luna to be Ollivander's grand-daughter (her late mother was his daughter) and to be a wand-maker for her adult career. Even tho' it was terribly cute when imprisoned Luna asked "Mr Ollivander" for the nail, I would have preferred her to ask "Grandpa" for the sake of my theory. I'm almost as irritated as the Rowling-haters that Herself went out of her way to show Zacharias Smith as a nasty coward. I wanted a very different book 7. One in which Snape had turned to the 'good' side based on a intellectual decision that evil is bad. In that case, what would be proof sufficient to convince a reader that DD had been correct to trust Severus Snape completely? One in which House Unity was a major theme. I liked the suggestion that the representatives of all four Houses had to join together to destroy the Horcruxes, and it would turn out that Draco, Marietta, and Zacharias were the representatives of their Houses, so the Trio had to make nice to them to get them to co-operate. I wanted the Department of Mysteries and the Chamber of Secrets to be necessary to the solution (at least the Room of Requirement was!). Pippin Foxmoth wrote in : << Economic disaster for some is always economic opportunity for others. >> I don't think that's true of LV's reign. Some people may have joined the DEs because they thought it was. But I've long believed that, no matter how obsessed LV is with not dying, his real desire is to destroy and destroy. I think DH confirmed it by his comtemplation that the only time he feels -- healthy -- is when he's murdering someone. Also by him killing all those loyal, and presumably useful, DEs in his temper tantrum. So for a while, the end of Fortescue's ice cream shop may be a benefit to competing ice cream shops, but eventually he'll destroy all the ice cream shops. And all the cows, if he notices that there are cows. To me, LV is more like Pol Pot than like Hitler. I suppose some high ranking Khmer Rouge profited from the genocide (financially as well as getting their jollies); instead of destroying all the artifacts made by civilization, they sold some of them to foreign collectors. But LV, as a Legilimens with no feeling of comradeship at all, would welcome the excuse to kill them for that, which is not profitable. << As for trading with Muggles, that was handled through the goblins, who know that Voldemort and his servants keep their treasure at Gringotts just like everyone else and won't want things too disrupted, will they? >> The Goblins put the Muggle money back into circulation, but I'm not sure that means they do all the trading with Muggles. Anyway, even Goblins would find it difficult to trade with Muggles if all the Muggle factories and shops and farms have been destroyed and most Muggles have been killed or fled to another country, as part of LV enjoying destruction. Besides, I think the Goblins would figure out that Voldemort does want things too disrupted (and he kills too many Goblins) even before the Muggles are wiped out. Carol wrote in : << And JKR herself, acting as if she owns the characters she's sent into the world for our enjoyment and our interpretation, drives me insane. Reading is a creative process. It is not or should not be indoctrination, brainwashing, with the reader seeing exactly what the author sees, especially since the author's own interpretation is so inconsistent and fluctuating. I think that she takes certain things for granted and forgets that she hasn't put them into the text of the book. >> As you know, I'm glad Rowling answers questions, even when I don't like the answers. I think Rowling has as much right as anyone, and more right than most, to say what she thinks happened off-screen. I think she may be taking remarks about the author being dead a little too literally, that she might feel that some folks want her to die now that her purpose on Earth has been accomplished. I think most of her remarks that strike you as forbidding readers to interpret were really intended to protest that she has a right to have opinions about the characters just like the rest of us. << Ron knowing about the Hand of Glory that Draco supposedly owned >> I promise you on my word of honor -- on the lives of my cats! -- that it never occurred to me that that was an inconsistency. I promise you that I immediately assumed, without even thinking about it, that Draco had bought the Hand of Glory from Borgin & Burkes on some later occasion than the one Harry saw, and that Ron knew about it because he had seen Draco showing it off at Hogwarts. I had thought that Draco had merely been looking idly at it in the scene that Harry saw, so I was surprised that he'd actually wanted it more than I'd thought, and wondered if he had bought it as a tiny act of rebellion against his father (and the fanfics that could inspire!). At the time I assumed that he'd bought it by owl order early in the CoS school year, but now I realise that, if he had, it would have added to the Trio's suspicion of Draco, or at least been mentioned when they Polyjuiced into the Slytherin common room. So maybe he bought it over the summer after CoS. Anyway, long enough before HBP that the new anti-Dark detectors weren't in place. Carol wrote in : << And logically, the parents who followed would not be those of the students who stayed to fight but those of the students, Slytherins among them, who went to the Hog's Head. >> With respect, Aberforth or Horace could have notified parents from the Hog's Head that their offspring had stayed to fight, or some of the underage students who left could have told their parents that so-and-so stayed to fight, and their parents could have told so-and-so's parents, which could have motivated some of those parents to come fight in defense of their children. Carol wrote in : << Another example is the mention of skulls in the Slytherin common room in DH, when in fact, no such skulls are described in CoS. Possibly she was thinking of Borgin and Burkes. (And her statement in an interview that the Slytherin common room has an eerie beauty is not consistent with skulls, either.) >> Another example is between PS/SS and OoP, she forgot that Prefect badges are silver, and thought they were red and gold as in the movie. However, I'm sure plenty of people would think skulls not at all inconsistent with beauty. Didn't Gaudi do an apartment building exterior all in bones? << I also hated Harry's casting the Crucio, but neither incident ruined the book for me. >> I wished that MacGonagall's sentence that began: "That was certainly gallant, Potter, but --" had ended "but a Stunning Spell or the Full-Body Bind would have stopped him longer." But then she would have had to use the Full-Body Bind and Mobilicorpus instead of Imperius to pile the DEs like cordwood. Carol wrote in : << just like the missing 24 hours she's still puzzled about, the letter that had no way of appearing at 12 GP >> I'm mildly surprised she can't understand that the 24 hours are missing and that PoA!Remus transformed well after moonrise, and I hope she doesn't make something up to conceal her error. But it was perfectly possible for the letter to be at 12 Grimmauld Place. If the home that Sirius bought when he was 16 was left alone while he was in Azkaban, he had time in GoF and OoP to go there (or send Remus there) and gather up relics that he wanted to brood other. If it wasn't left alone (I think he owned rather than rented, but perhaps it was sold to pay debts or as part of the punishment), someone packed up all the stuff from it and sent it either to Sirius's Gringotts vault, which he still had, or to his parents' house, or to a dump. I think it was Remus who did the packing (I still think Remus lived with Sirius, even tho' Herself said in an interview that he lived with James & Lily -- the young couple would want a bit of privacy) and he wouldn't have sent it to the dump. Carol wrote in : << his interpreting "Neither can live while the other survives" as "One of us has to kill the other" makes no sense, either, at least to me. >> This is another forbidden "I agree" post. I wish someone could explain that prophecy so that it makes sense to me. I wish it was "Neither can die while the other survives", which I could understand. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 6 09:06:35 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:06:35 -0000 Subject: More stories left to tell Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180406 Jim Ferer wrote in : << There are so many stories left to tell, though - we could spend a lot of time discussing those and how the wizard world works, but there seems little interest in it. I don't post much any more because my posts rarely get replies. >> Me, too. Katie anigrrl wrote in : << How do you guys think the very first wizards realized they were different and how do you think the wizarding community was formed? >> I once proposed that, very long ago, an asteroid made of magic had crushed into the Earth and plunged deep underground, and over time it dissolved into the water of a spring. And over generations, the plants and animals and people that drank from that spring became magical beings. On one hand, this must have happened long enough ago for the magical plants and animals to have spread all over the world. On the other hand, it must have happened after the ancestors of humans and the ancestors of chimpanzees had diverged, because there don't seem to be any chimp wizards. And it might be that the ones who moved away while they were still human were the ancestors of wizards, while the ones who stayed were the ancestors of Goblins and trolls and merpeople and veela. I don't know whether suggesting that humans were the ancestors of the other races of magical beings is some kind of Human Supremacist notion -- I think the centaurs wouldn't take very kindly to being told they were the descendants of wizards who had been only partially successful in their attempt to become horse animagi. If the first wizards were a band that lived near that spring, they were a community before they were wizards, and they didn't realize they were different until they were well acquainted with other bands. If the first wizards were popping up apparently at random in bands of humans all over the world, each one would have noticed he/she was different very quickly, but it might have been a long time before they knew that there were people like them in other bands. One listie suggested one time that they didn't even realise that magic was hereditary until then. They could have been popping up randomly in different bands, if the genes of the ancestral wizards had spread widely before being activated by some environmental change. I like the idea of each tribe and village having its own wizard, who was very important to them as a healer, a water-finder, someone who made the crops grow better and the animals walk right up to the hunters. When people started living in larger groups (cities), the wizards got together and exchanged knowledge instead of learning only from each one's own parent(s). The resulting increase of magical knowledge would have made each wizard, and the wizard class, much more powerful. I say, before writing was invented in Sumer and Egypt, the wizards were already in positions of power there. The wizards were the priesthood and established the first wizarding school in Sumer, the second in Egypt, maybe the third in China. From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Sun Jan 6 09:24:15 2008 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:24:15 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CA1E5D0A677DBE-F7C-50BF@MBLK-M21.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180407 Hello all!? I know my personal reason for staying out of the posting is that it feels like the same thing over and over again (and I'm sure everyone's answer to this is the same thing over and over again lol).? It's the 24 hours, the "Are Slytherins evil?," and Sirius v. Severus.? I guess it's hard for people who have been on the list so long to change what they think (especially now that DH is out).? I know I'm not changing how much I love Severus, my belief that Dumbledore totally screwed up when he gave Gryffindor those additional points at the end of PS, or that JKR can't keep a plot straight to save Harry's life.? I definitely will *not* be reading anything else JKR writes (...well...outside the encyclopedia -- although I'm afraid of that for entirely other reasons).? I only stayed with the books after OoP because I was invested in the characters; I couldn't stand the shaky plots and seemingly OOC actions almost all of the characters had.? The chapter discussions are going fabulously, but it's something you learn after your second theme party: it's all been done before. Oryomai ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jferer at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 14:10:25 2008 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:10:25 -0000 Subject: More stories left to tell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180408 Rita, the Catlady: "I say, before writing was invented in Sumer and Egypt, the wizards were already in positions of power there. The wizards were the priesthood and established the first wizarding school in Sumer, the second in Egypt, maybe the third in China." Don't forget India. How peoples discover their skills has always been fascinating. Things like the wheel I can understand, but how do more sophisticated things get thought of? How did wizards figure out wands, for example? I can imagine a wizarding shaman may have tied unicorn hair around sticks while making a rattle or something and discovering his powers increased while he held it. The more curious shamans started playing around with the concept. When they found that certain combinations worked better for certain wizards, that led to more developments. I've long believed that the incantations of Charms come from the "sacred" language most cultures have; Latin is the closest we have in the West, but many cultures have explicitly secret/sacred languages. In other words, you say "Alohamora" to open a door with magic, because "open the door" means reaching out with your hand and turning the knob. It's always a question of focusing the mind. Potions may have been the hardest to develop. I'm sure there were a lot of fatalities on the way, but early wizards noticed that certain ingredients always seemed to at least do *something,* and started working with them. BTW, what do you think would happen if Muggles like ourselves mixed a Potion exactly as prescribed, with all the same ingredients and techniques? I say nothing would happen, the potion wouldn't work. I believe modern magic had to develop in the order I just set down; wands were needed to do charms and then potions. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 6 16:11:53 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:11:53 -0000 Subject: That "Love" thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180409 > Betsy Hp: > To my mind, this is the most messed up definition of love, and the > most messed up way to study love I've ever heard of. Create a false > illusion of obsession and lust and *that's* supposed to teach you > about love? THAT'S what's in the "love room"?!? Pippin: Hee! And that's just what I love about the WW. They have this beautiful philosophy, and then it gets all messed up in the execution. And that's why it doesn't make a difference to Harry whether Al goes into Slytherin. Salazar's house has a reputation as the home of bad wizards, and Gryffindor has a reputation as the home of good ones. But reputations don't make choices, people do. If it makes a difference to you to be in the house with the better reputation, well, go for it. But... Yes there are Slytherins who would try to get Al to make bad choices, or betray him. But if he thinks he's going to keep people like that out of his life by slamming the door to Gryffindor Tower -- well, we know how well that worked. And it hasn't changed. James Sirius, that bullying little squirt, lives to cause trouble. Young Scorpius, meanwhile, is perfectly behaved.::sigh:: But the thing that I hear JKR saying about love, and maybe you just disagree with this, is that from the inside there's no difference. The person who's in love can't tell whether a) the thing he loves really has the qualities he's in love with b)those qualities are worth loving or c)something is messing with his brain chemistry and it's going to wear off. The love that Harry feels for his family as he looks into the Mirror of Erised is real, who could doubt it? Yet the mirror contains neither knowledge nor truth. Besty Hp: To my mind it > speaks to a basic misunderstanding of what love really is. It > explains why Snape was made pathetic and weak by his "love" for > Lily. Pippin: Huh? To me this speaks of a basic misunderstanding of the plot. :) Snape was made strong by his love for Lily, strong enough to defy Voldemort. He was weak and pathetic only in his inability to let go of his grief and shame. But that's not love, that's self-hatred. I wish Dumbledore, that cold-hearted bastard, had told him that Lily wouldn't have wanted him to mourn her forever. But I like to think that Snape felt the way I did when I was trapped in depression ( something that JKR also knows about first-hand.) I felt my sorrow was all I had left of my love, and if I put it behind me I wouldn't have anything. Betsy Hp: It explains why we never see the Weasleys interact as a loving > family would, supporting and building each other up rather than > constantly sniping and pulling each other down. Pippin: When does a Weasley need help from his family and not get it? They tear each other down when there's something that needs tearing, and that's why they're not smug, self-righteous gits like the Dursleys (although Percy came close.) Betsy Hp" > I'm not going to suggest that this is JKR's personal view of things, > but I think this is what she's comfortable with writing. And I think > it goes a long way towards explaining why her "epitome of goodness" > is such a cold-hearted bastard. Love is a weakness and a danger, > apparently. Of course her good guy avoids it if he can. Pippin: By the end of the book, the good guy is Harry, who doesn't avoid love, who is a better man than Dumbledore because he can love, because he's not afraid to love although he knows that love can be misleading. > Betsy Hp > > PS: I have to mention this gem... > > "JKR: No! God, it wasn't Pansy Parkinson! I loath that girl. (JN and > SU laugh) I don't love Draco but I really dislike her. She's every > girl who ever teased me at school, she's the anti-Hermione. I loathe > her. Yes, sorry, sidetracked there by my latent bitterness " > > Hee! No wonder I liked Pansy. :D Pippin: Betsy, are you saying you teased people like JKR when you were in school? :D Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 16:37:47 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:37:47 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180410 > Montavilla47: > > Not to argue against the ultimate irrelevance of the House Unity > theme, because, well, you were right, weren't you? It *was* > irrelevant... but it seems to me that there was more to it than > one song. > > There was, to begin with, the story of the Founders, that seemed > to me to be an ongoing story. That is, the loss of Slytherin as > a founder seemed to me a story that cried out for resolution, > especially since the last descendent of Slytherin was such a > horror. > > Also, there was the rallying that took place at the end of > GoF, when Dumbledore told Fudge that the Wizarding World > needed to unite with other species to fight against Voldemort. > > While that didn't specifically include all humans, including > the Slytherins as humans, it seemed strongly implied to me. > > Of course, I got it wrong, but that was the moment that > really pulled me into the series. It seemed incredibly > important--and that it would drive the series from that > point onwards. > > Heh. Looking back on it now, I can't believe what a > fool I was--since that moment was contradicted by the > whole of OotP (barring the Sorting Hat Song). Instead > of reaching out, the Order actually got more and more > insular as time went on. Well yeah I was right and was very pleased about it. Look, I was major wrong on Snape and to the extent wrong about Dumbledore and I still loved last book, so yeah I was pleased to be right about something. But the thing is even if JKR decided to go for House unity, I would still be able to enjoy the book had it been written well. It is again the effect of arguing this topic for years and seeing some good arguments that I warmed up to it. But when I see the arguments that OMG it was a predominant theme in the books and JKR dropped it and that is why she is such a bad writer, well my only answer is that no it was not. **You** ( generic you) thought it was a major theme in the books, **you** ( generic you) misread the clues, what does it have to do with JKR's skill as a writer? If you misread what story writer is telling, how this is the measurement of writer's skill if she did not deliver what you ( generic you) thought she would be delivering? And again, I know that not everybody is disappointed because JKR did not deliver what they wanted them to deliver, I know many people did not have specific expectations and just did not like the way plot developed. But it is not like I am doing mind reading in this specific thread people are saying that because house unity was not delivered and they did not see it, etc. Now you (specific you now :)) brought up some moments that you thought were clues of House unity. Honestly, story of the founders never cried out for any resolution in house unity for me. I took it for what it was IMO. That they were best friends, but one of them if we look at him in the most favorable light went crazy and decided that muggleborn kids should not be allowed in Hogwarts, that's all. I agree that end of GoF was call for unity, but IMO call for unity between the countries, not between the houses. I also never thought that Slytherins were prejudiced against. Oh dear I thought ? if the little bastard Malfoy will turn out to be really misunderstood, that would be weird. Basically even when I warmed up to House unity ( not thinking that this is necessarily going to happen, but just reading arguments for it), I thought Slytherins will still have to deny their ideology. I thought that if author will go for it, the maximum we will see is that Slytherins have some good qualities NOT that what we already saw will turn out to be good. Probably because I wanted to strangle Malfoy every time he opened his mouth or did something and could not figure out how the heck what he did could turn out to be in any way admirable. So, again when you are saying that this was the moment that pulled you in the series, I understand that, but I guess I cannot understand how this translates in author lacking skill if you were the one who misread the clues, you know? I mean you are certainly not a fool ? I thought that Snape was evil traitor, I thought Dumbledore would never tell Snape to kill him and I am not calling myself a fool, heheh. I mean, again I can sympathize to a degree , I can sympathize with the emotional reaction if something you wanted did not happen, but I cannot sympathize with condemnation of the writer if she did not deliver what you think she would be delivering. I am not saying that you condemn her, but I had seen that many times. I mentioned it in the past ? I really was disappointed in the ending of Pulman's books. I do not want to reread the ending. But it will never enter my mind to call Pullman a bad writer. I mean, I could not pull the books down, why would I call him a bad writer? Same here ? if somebody is saying that story was a page turner, but it was so bad, I find it strange. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 6 16:44:06 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:44:06 -0000 Subject: Prime Ministers & secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180411 Barry: > Most, perhaps. But we're talking Harry Potter time, 1990s. PMs aren't > such fools as JKR makes they out to be. They would want to be on their > guard - if only from their deputy PMs. > Pippin: All the wizards need to do is confund the Prime Minister so that he forgets he has a security team who could set up an ambush. And the PM will never even know it happened. But I agree that JKR is indulging in a bit of satire and not portraying any politicians fairly. We get bumblers, opportunists and demagogues set against the idealized Kingsley. Pippin From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 16:50:21 2008 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:50:21 -0000 Subject: Occlumency lessons WAS: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Charact In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180412 > > Annemehr: > > > > But, Harry complained that Snape was making it *worse.* And then > > Dumbledore said that Occlumency lessons opened Harry's mind > > *further.* I take that as confirmation that the mind/soul bit > link > > was stronger as a consequence of the lessons. If this seems > > ambiguous to you, what other possible meaning do you take from > > Dumbledore's words? Or do you just think DD may have been > mistaken? > > > > Alla: > > But actually I reread the passage again and now think that it can be > interpreted that if Dumbledore would have taught Harry, then his > mind could have been opened further, not that any Occlumency teacher > would have. > > Does that make any sense to you? I tend to think up wierd and often > incorrect things when I am tired. > > I know one thing - this paragraph definitely is ambiguous to me. > Annemehr: Well, I mulled it over, overnight... The way I see it, the phrase "open your mind even further to Voldemort WHILE in my presence" denotes the joining of two events in time: 1)opening Harry's mind and 2)being with Dumbledore. And joining them in the sentence explaining why DD didn't teach Harry implies they *could* be separate, and in fact *were* separate, in the alternative situation DD did in fact set up: Harry's occlumency lessons with Snape opened his mind further to Voldemort WHILE NOT in the presence of Dumbledore. Whereas, if DD had meant that lessons with himself, and himself alone, would have opened Harry's mind to LV, he would have said "I am aware of it," said Dumbledore heavily. "I have already said that it was a mistake for me not to teach you myself, though I was sure, at the time, that nothing could have been more dangerous, because if I was your teacher, it would have opened your mind further to Voldemort." This is the structure that implies that its opposite would be that lessons with Snape would not open Harry's mind further to LV. See how they're imparting different information? The way DD said it implies that opening Harry's mind is independent of DD's presence. I can't get anything else out of the phrase as DD says it in the text, myself -- to me, it's still not ambiguous at all. Annemehr From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 6 17:15:47 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:15:47 -0000 Subject: Occlumency lessons WAS: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Charact In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180413 Alla: Basically I cannot interpret "to open your mind further" as the fact > that it was necessarily opened ONLY during the lessons. I intepret > it as it could have been opened before lessons started by the > connection between Harry and Voldemort or as we know between pieces > of soul or whatever that was. Pippin: Hermione says something about this too, after the first lesson, that it's only natural that Harry's scar is going to hurt worse after someone's been poking in his mind, though I doubt Hermione understands that Harry has a soul bit in him and that's what's causing the pain. But Dumbledore knows this. He knows that the pain isn't from Voldemort trying to get in but from the soul bit trying to get out. Snape doesn't know about the soul bit, so he can't even subconsciously want to manipulate it, while Dumbledore does know and sees that IMO as a danger. I think that Neri's old distinction about "official mysteries" is a good thing to recall. "Official mysteries" were questions which the characters themselves raised, or which JKR hinted at in interviews. Questions suggested by inconsistencies or lacunae in the story which the characters themselves seemed unaware of were unlikely to be resolved. The missing 24 hours was a prime example of the sort of thing we were meant to ignore. I think kids and casual readers may be in a better position to appreciate the overall impact of JKR's work than we are, because we've trained ourselves to look at minutiae so much we're in danger of missing the forest for the trees. I'm sure JKR feels DH explains adequately that Dumbledore's confidence in Snape's loyalties was justified, and therefore whether he could have opened Harry's mind further to Voldemort through the lessons is a moot point. Pippin From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 6 18:27:36 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:27:36 -0000 Subject: Why did Rowling intend to kill Arthur in book five? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180414 Now we know that the much-speculated character who got a reprieve was Arthur Weasley in OoP, not anyone in DH. He was supposed to die from Nagini's attack. That would show that war is hell. But I can't imagine what the story would gain from it that's greater than or equal to what it gains from Harry having saved Arthur's life. As the book is, Harry's nightmare vision was not only true and terrible, it was useful. That seems a MUCH stronger encouragement to him to want to keep having the visions than if it had been true, terrible, and useless. 'I don't like it much, but it's been useful, hasn't it? I mean . . I saw that snake attack Mr Weasley and if I hadn't, Professor Dumbledore wouldn't have been able to save him, would he?' If it had been true, terrible, and useless, Harry might have listened to himself when he said: 'And he might try and make me do things?' (Surely the normal response to 'he has realised that he might be able to access your thoughts and feelings in return ? ' would be 'But I don't know anything [so he couldn't find out anything from me].' Harry's actual response presumably shows that he was vaguely aware of the Dark Lord's intention through the scar link, all the more reason he should have listened to himself.) And he might have been less stubborn, maybe even willing to listen to Hermione's logic about the Ministry of Magic not being deserted on mid-afternoon of a weekday, if his previous attempt at saving someone had turned out badly. I think it would also mess up Harry's relationships with the Weasleys. As it is, Mrs Weasley hugged Harry and said something about him having saved practically the whole family by now (I guess that was in HBP after Ron was poisoned) so that he felt welcome being part of the Weasley family. If Arthur had died, even if the twins and Molly didn't actually blame him, they would have been too grief-stricken to reach out to him. He would have emotionally isolated himself from them (from Ron and Ginny, too) because of his guilt, even greater than the guilt he felt in the book when Arthur survived, and his reluctance to intrude on their grief. That would have made it a lot harder for Ron to remain the loyal friend who sticks by him, and for Rowling to get him together with Ginny. Mind you, the delightful Ginny of GoF became quite annoying in the rest of the story. I could have done without her. But Rowling couldn't. I appreciated Betsy Hp's explanation of why Ginny kept attacking people by flying into them on her broomstick and casting bat-bogey hexes; that whenever Rowling wrote of female sexuality, she wrote of it as an attack, and Ginny's only purpose in the story is romantic/erotic, therefore sexual. That explains why going down the corridor hexing everyone you pass, just because you can, was a bad thing when James did it but a good thing when Ginny did it. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 6 19:03:00 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:03:00 -0000 Subject: Why did Rowling intend to kill Arthur in book five? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180415 Catlady: > Now we know that the much-speculated character who got a reprieve was > Arthur Weasley in OoP, not anyone in DH. He was supposed to die from > Nagini's attack. That would show that war is hell. But I can't imagine > what the story would gain from it that's greater than or equal to what > it gains from Harry having saved Arthur's life. Pippin: The story could have gone much the same way, provided that Harry thinks he could have saved Arthur if he'd gotten help sooner. In fact he'd have an even stronger incentive for trying to get to Sirius ASAP. "Look, Mr. Weasley's DEAD because nobody helped him in time. I'VE GOT TO GO NOW!" Arthur, not Lupin, would have been with him in the forest, and since Molly would still have been alive there'd be no nagging questions about Tonks's absence. Also, Arthur was more like a father to Harry than Lupin was, and Harry would have had more time to miss him. But I understand why she felt getting rid of the most decent father in the books was too much. It would have given Ginny more depth as a character if she'd been struggling with grief, and a nice contrast if she'd handled it differently than Cho. Does Ginny really hex everyone? Or just people who annoy her? Presumably she grew out of it as James did. How come no one seems to think that naive readers will be confused about the nature of evil if the bad guys aren't perfectly bad, but think they'll be confused about the nature of goodness if the good guys aren't perfectly good? Pippin agrees that the romance was better in GoF but thinks it's because Rowling came up against the constraints of what she felt was appropriate for her child readers vs what older teens in wartime would be doing From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 6 21:15:50 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:15:50 -0000 Subject: Why did Rowling intend to kill Arthur in book five? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180416 "pippin_999" replied in : << The story could have gone much the same way, provided that Harry thinks he could have saved Arthur if he'd gotten help sooner. >> Yes to the Ministry raid. But it would still have strained his relationships with the surviving Weasleys. > Does Ginny really hex everyone? Or just people who annoy her? > Presumably she grew out of it as James did. How come no one seems > to think that naive readers will be confused about the nature > of evil if the bad guys aren't perfectly bad, but think > they'll be confused about the nature of goodness if the good guys > aren't perfectly good? I *hope* Ginny grew out of it, but she didn't grow out of it as James did: James changed his behavior as an attempt to win Lily's esteem, and Ginny already has her beloved's esteem. I hope James learned the innate value of his improved behavior from doing it. How delightful it would be if Luna brought Ginny to a realization of her behavior -- Ginny flies into a rage at someone for harassing Luna, but Luna offers sympathy to the victim ('Here's a hand up. Should I get you some Numbing Nostrum? I know falling like that hurts, from when people jinx my shoes.') It never occurred to me that naive readers might be confused about the nature of goodness by Ginny's bullying ways. It did occur to me momentarily that Rowling might be a bit confused on the subject, but mostly I just found OoP!Ginny a little annoying and HBP!Ginny very annoying. And something that annoyingly occurred to me just as I clicked 'Send' on the previous post: Kreachy told Narcissa that DD, Sirius, and all the red-haired brats knew of the attack on Arthur even before the night watchman found him. If Kreachy knew that they knew because Harry had spread the word because Harry had seen the vision, he would have told her that, too. So that would be how LV learned of the scar connection, not because he felt it in his own headache or something. Maybe all other readers had already figured that out but me. Therefore, in the following long but heavily snipped excerpt from OoP, Snape is concealing from Harry that Harry's actions, DD's actions, and Kreachy spreading the word had given this information to LV. Snape appears to be making a point of deceiving without actually lying. On one paw, Snape has to be a good liar to survive his double-agent role for even minutes. On another, has he ever outright lied to Harry? I wonder why? 'It appears that the Dark Lord has been unaware of the connection between you and himself until very recently. Up till now it seems that you have been experiencing his emotions, and sharing his thoughts, without his being any the wiser. However, the vision you had shortly before Christmas -' 'As I was saying, the vision you had shortly before Christmas represented such a powerful incursion upon the Dark Lord's thoughts -' 'And Vol - he - realised I was there?' 'It seems so,' said Snape coolly. 'How do you know?' 'It is enough that we know,' said Snape repressively. 'The important point is that the Dark Lord is now aware that you are gaining access to his thoughts and feelings. He has also deduced that the process is likely to work in reverse; that is to say, he has realised that he might be able to access your thoughts and feelings in return -' From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 6 21:58:53 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:58:53 -0000 Subject: Why did Rowling intend to kill Arthur in book five? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180417 "Catlady wrote: snip Snape appears to be making a point of deceiving without actually lying. On one paw, Snape has to be a good liar to survive his double-agent role for even minutes. On another, has he ever outright lied to Harry? I wonder why? Potioncat: He's also adamant that Harry not use Dark curses. I don't think we ever see Snape use Dark Magic either. (Except the cutting curse on James, and whatever he did to Wormtail in the stairway) Back to deceiving without actually lying---something DD does a lot too-- is it just Harry? Or does Snape make it a point to mislead with the truth? That might make it easier to foil the Dark Lord. From coyandbecky at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 18:15:01 2008 From: coyandbecky at yahoo.com (revaunchanistx) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:15:01 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180418 > > >>Pippin: > > > > JKR doesn't show us Harry realizing he's prejudiced > > against Slytherins, because, IMO, she wants *us* to > > realize that. She wants us to be able to reach that > > conclusion independently. I agree that Rowling wants > > us to dislike Slytherins. > > > > It feels lovely, doesn't it, not to think, just to > > believe what you're told? > > > Betsy Hp: > The reason this argument leaves me completely cold is that > I've long felt more affinity for Slytherin than Gryffindor. > No one had to *tell* me Harry was prejudiced. I picked that > up the moment he refused to shake Draco's hand. Actually, > from the moment Hagrid whispered an obvious lie into Harry's > ear. revaunchanistx: What? Did you miss Harry and Draco's meeting in Madam Malkin's where Draco oozed prejudice and privilege out of every pore, saying half-bloods and mud bloods shouldn't be allowed in and my father is trying to get me on the house team and insulted Hagrid, Harry's first true friend. You might have also missed Draco's jab at Harry's second true friend when he told him what his father told him about Weasleys, not to mention Draco's introduction of "some wizarding families are much better than others" or the fact that he was flanked by two hulking bodyguards. I would not have shook Draco's hand. > Betsy Hp: > That Slytherins are treated as the scapegoats and sin-eaters > of the WW had been apparent to me the moment Dumbledore pulled > that tacky powerplay at the end of PS/SS. That Draco was stronger > than Harry ever gave him credit for was apparent to me the second > time Draco went up against Harry. Or the moment Draco looked up > at a teacher who'd just physically abused and humiliated him in > front of the entire student body and still managed to spit out > defiance through his pain. revaunchanistx: At what point are the Slytherins ever a scapegoat or sin-eater, at the end of PS/SS last minute points had to be rewarded, it would have been more wrong to ignore what had happened and not reward points to Gryffindor. It would have shown extreme favoritism of Slytherin just to let them win. Draco always tried to get Harry when his back was turned, Harry treated Draco with the respect he deserved. Harry was the only one who recognized Draco as a serious threat in HBP. Draco did not spit out defiance to a teacher who humiliated him. He told a bitter Death Eater that his father would hear of it, not very brave of him. Also let's not forget that Professor McGonnagall stopped him, a lowly Gryffindor, or the fact that fake Moody (Barty Crouch Jr.) was probably not in Slytherin (at least canon doesn't say he was) and Barty Crouch Jr. was very bad; he could be called a "sin-eater" > Betsy Hp: > I didn't need to be "taught a lesson about prejudice", at > least, not in the way you suggest JKR attempted to do so. > Harry did. And it never happened. Instead, everything Harry > believed about Slytherin was shown to be true. They *were* > deserters and betrayers and cowards. As per the books anyway, > it was my views of prejudice that lead me astray. I kept > expecting a turn around that never happened. revaunchanistx: I don't subscribe to the idea that HP is a massive lesson in prejudice. My views of prejudice are if a person's views are slanted towards one way of thinking based on his perceptions of certain events then he is prejudiced. I was once chased by a gang of Mexicans, but I don't dislike Mexicans. I was chased by the Mexican gang because these two white guys I hung out with was stealing stuff from them in gym class. The white guys also don't represent the entire race. Not all white people are thieves. You have to consider the whole story. To say you had more affinity with Slytherins from the beginning and then warp scenarios to fit your Harry is prejudiced theory could be considered prejudice against Gryffindors or Harry. That theory throws out logic and shows an ego-centric/ethno- centric viewpoint that is prejudice. It is the essence of prejudice. If you sympathized with Slytherins anyway and saw them as victims what sort of turn-around were you expecting? Throughout the books JKR has repeatedly told us about how the choices we make are truly what defines us, and also shown us the consequences of choices. She has also showed us the differences and similarities in the houses, could Cormac McClaggen, and Zacharias Smith have been in Slytherin. Ernie McMillan could have been chosen for Gryffindor. Hermione was considered for Ravenclaw. Neville would have made a fine Hufflepuff. The sorting hat sorts based on the preferences of the Four Founders, it is an extension of a real person. Who knows? why people pick the people they do, If you and I were picking a group of students I might pick all of the rambunctious ones and those who show a creative side, who knows who you might pick. Harry at the end would have been perfectly fine if his son went into Slytherin, unlike Sirius's parents or possibly Harry's Grandparents, also I doubt Draco told young Scorpio that it would be fine to be in Gryffindor. So there is redemption in one family. Also who is to say? that Ravenclaws or Hufflepuffs hate Slytherin as much as Gryffindor does. It seemed to me that Ravenclaws hated them both for winning as much as they do. It was always beat Syltherin and Gryffindor in Quidditch for Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff. Just like everybody hates the Cowboys or now the New England Patriots in Football. I know Cedric's dad (a Hufflepuff) gloated about it when Hufflepuff beat Harry and the Gryffindors. Even Sirius in GOF told Harry not think of the world in evil Slytherin and good Gryffindor, he should know he was betrayed by his fellow housemate. There really is no house bias outside of Hogwarts. In the adult world everyone is shown to accept people as they are. > Betsy Hp: > So, in the end, I think Harry is a naked emperor; a > character on a hero's journey who doesn't go anywhere, > doesn't learn anything, and doesn't change his world. > His biggest accomplishment, I think, was returning the > WW to its status quo, wrapped in the warmth of their > comfortable prejudices. At least, that's how I see > it. revaunchanistx: So in the end, what is Harry the emperor of, he had private tutelage under the greatest wizard of the age, sacrificed himself for the good of those he loved, defeated the darkest wizard of them all at the age of 17, and then longed for a return to when he was happiest. He only wanted a sandwich from his friend Kreacher. He didn't establish himself as emperor, a more ambitious man would have done that. Like the kings and heroes of old Harry went back to being a regular man. He didn't seek to be a God or Emperor like Voldemort. That is Heroic, that is the hero's journey. Beowulf did not become King after defeating Grendel and his mother, Frodo went to the White Shores, Sam married and went back to farming. I don't know what hero's journey your familiar with but these are the ones I know about. Please enlighten me as to what happens at the end of yours. Again the status quo has changed in Harry's family. The only way the status quo would change on a massive scale like you want it to is through a regime like Voldemort wanted to instill, where he would have employed tactics that worked in Cambodia, Stalin's Russia, and Red China and yes even Nazi Germany. We could insert any other cruel regime where going against the state mandated re-education (new status quo) resulted in death. Is that what you wanted? Also, did you ever think that maybe the Slytherins like things the way they are too? Sure some of them probably still cling to blood purity, and would like things to be that way but it sure is nice that the "naked emperor" and his new regime didn't follow in the footsteps of the Khmer Rouge. On a lighter note, I live in Texas and would hate for my son to go to Sam Houston State University. See I went to Stephen F. Austin and they were our rivals. It's sort of a small UT vs. A&M thing. I don't think of myself as a bad person because of that bias. It's just fun. Harry grew above that. Ron did not. I like Ron's point of view. revaunchanistx From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 22:56:31 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:56:31 -0000 Subject: Occlumency lessons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180419 > bboyminn: > > I think Dumbledore thought when the cause was great enough > Snape and Harry could set aside their differences and work > toward a common goal. BOY WAS HE WRONG! Lessons, especially > with Snape have the effect of enraging and frustrating > Harry. The very emotions he need to control to protect > himself were being inflamed by the humiliation of Snape > digging into his deepest and most private memories. > > So, regardless of the actually Occlumency lesson, it was > that they were being taught by Snape that inflamed the > sitiation and made it impossible for Harry to effectively > practice Occlumency. > > Also, I think Snape tends to rely on the 'brute force' method > of teaching. Some one with more patience and much to Snape's > discredit, someone with more of a sense of subtly, and > Harry would have been a fair Occlumens. > > Note Harry is not completely without talent in this area. > One of the problems was that Harry was just as interested > as Snape in seeing these memories come wandering by, but > when a truly private memory began to appear, Harry cut it > off immediately. If Snape had been a better and less > emotionally involved teacher he would have picked up on > that and built on it. Instead, he just used it as an > excuse to bully Harry even more. > > Also, note that Voldemort emotions, thoughts, feeling, and > sense of excitement are also rising during this time. That > combined with the other frustration confronting Harry > (Umbridge, Cho, Quidditch, etc...) and Harry was, in my > opinion, emotionally near the breaking point. None of this > is helping at all, and it all explains why Harry appears > to be getting worse at blocking access to his mind instead > of getting better. Carol responds: Setting aside what JKR said in an interview about Harry's inability to compartmentalize his mind, I think you're forgetting at least two things here. Yes, Harry was angry and the fact that Snape was his teacher, invading his mind, could not have helped his mood. Nor did his distrust of Snape and Snape's dislike of him help the teacher/student relationship. But Harry wasn't trying or practicing because he *wanted* to have those dreams, and Snape *did* praise Harry's efforts, more than once. "For a first attempt, that was not as bad as it might have been" may not be high praise coming from McGonagall or Flitwick, but from Snape, it's the equivalent of "Good job, Potter." At least he's acknowledging that Harry's attempt, in effect, exceeds expectations. And Snape controls his anger when Harry's Protego reveals *his* memories, reserving his outbursts for those times when Harry is seeing memories that belong to Voldemort rather than Harry himself. And it's apparent from subsequent remarks from Dumbledore that Snape is reporting to DD regarding Harry's progress (or lack thereof)--and the LV-related memories, whose content DD could not have known had Snape not told him. And let's not forget that the lessons ended because Harry deliberately invaded Snape's memories in the Pensieve. Carol, wondering if the Pensieve incident contributed to Snape's last brainstorm (showing Harry all the relevant memories, including, perhaps, the two that had been hidden before) From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 23:01:05 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:01:05 -0000 Subject: Occlumency lessons WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180420 > Annemehr: > > Well, I mulled it over, overnight... Mike: Me too, Anne. :D > Annemehr: > > The way I see it, the phrase "open your mind even further to > Voldemort WHILE in my presence" denotes the joining of two events > in time: 1)opening Harry's mind and 2)being with Dumbledore. And > joining them in the sentence explaining why DD didn't teach Harry > implies they *could* be separate, and in fact *were* separate, in > the alternative situation DD did in fact set up: Harry's occlumency > lessons with Snape opened his mind further to Voldemort WHILE NOT > in the presence of Dumbledore. Mike: While I agree, your interpretation of the passage in OotP seems logical, I'm not sure you have Dumbledore's reasons correct. Let me explain. Many of us wondered if the "scar connection" was a two-way street. Interpreting DD's words would tend to make one come away with that conclusion. That would also put Snape in an awkward position if Voldemort was sitting in on Harry's Occlumency lessons with Snape. This lead to the theories that Snape set up the Pensieve eavesdropping incident, to stop these useless lessons before something damning of Snape's got exposed to the linked Voldemort. Of course, the DDM!Snape-ers wondered why DD would put Snape in this position. We knew the connection was open throughout OotP, then Voldemort closes it off in HBP, by Occlumency according to Dumbledore. But the connection is re-opened in DH. Why? I don't know, no explanation was given, unless it was part of the whole parasitic thing growing stronger explanation. But, was the connection a two-way street? NO! Voldemort's eyes/mind have always been the camera and Harry's mind has always been the projection screen. That was the case throughout OotP and it was the case throughout DH. Voldemort was never shown to have seen what's going on with Harry, or where he is. If he could have seen through Harry, he would have been on Harry first in the "Seven Potters", would have seen that he was at 12 GP, was at the Ministry, where the camping trip took them, seen him captured and in the Malfoy dungeon, on and on. The connection was open during almost every one of these events, and yet Voldemort didn't know where Harry was. So, where does that leave Dumbledore's explanation? > Annemehr > > See how they're imparting different information? The way DD > said it implies that opening Harry's mind is independent of DD's > presence. I can't get anything else out of the phrase as DD says > it in the text, myself -- to me, it's still not ambiguous at all. Mike: Try this one, Anne. :) Dumbledore said he saw the shadow of Voldemort behind Harry's eyes after the Arthur-gets-bit episode. So when Dumbledore says "open your mind even further to Voldemort" was he referring to the soul bit or the newly embodied LV? I think it can be interpreted as opening/weakening Harry's mind for the soul piece to gain more control. Somehow, these soul pieces have some sense of self, they know where they come from and who their enemies are. Witness the Diary. Dumbledore could have been afraid of giving the soul piece more incentive to take over Harry's mind, if it perceived DD as trying to block it from connecting to the father ship. An incentive that it probably wouldn't have if Harry was being taught by Snape, a perceived ally. If this was the case, the two-way connection to LV wasn't the reason for the lessons arraingements, and Snape was never in danger of being caught out by Voldemort. It was the danger from within Harry that Dumbledore was worried about. Furthermore, this makes Dumbledore wrong on two counts: 1) Occlumency was never going to shut off the connection. The mind penetration was the condition, with the soul piece inside of Harry. The only way to block it was to remove the soul piece, not something Occlumency was going to do. 2) Harry's ability to see out of Voldemort's mind/eyes was both exploitable, as Harry used it in DH, and not a danger per se to Harry. Even if DD was referring to the parasite growing stronger, he was underestimating Harry's strength while at the same time extolling and counting on it, imo. And we still wouldn't know if the lessons made Harry more suseptable to inputs from the embodied Voldemort. What did I miss? I know I missed something, but can't for the life of me figure out what it is? Mike From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 00:36:36 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:36:36 -0000 Subject: HouseElves/Pettigrew/Shunpike/Bertha/Slytherin/Rewrites/Economic/Carol, Carol In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180421 Carol earlier: > : > > << As for Pettigrew, I think he was the Muggle-born DE that JKR hinted at in an interview (unless she was referring to Stan Shunpike). >> Catlady responded: > I also think Pettigrew was the lone Muggle-born DE. I suppose there's some room for someone to argue that wizarding secrecy would prevent the Ministry from sending an Order of Merlin, First Class along with Peter's finger to his mother if she were a Muggle. Me, I think parents and siblings and spouses of wizards are allowed to know the secret. > > Do you think that Shunpike was a DE? I had taken it for granted that > he was under Imperius. Do you think that Shunpike was Muggle-born? If so, he wasn't fond of his Muggle relatives: "Don' listen properly, do they? Don' look properly either. Never notice nuffink, they don'." > Carol again: Actually, I agree with you. I only raised the possibility that JKR might have had someone other than Peter in mind, and I couldn't think of anyone who might fit the bill other than Stan Shunpike, who was never proven to be under the Imperius Curse (We have only Harry's word for it, and evidently Stan "put some work in [the Snatcher's] way," which seems to indicate that they see him as being on Voldemort's side. (Oddly, it doesn't seem to matter to anyone that Pius Thickness was Imperiused; he's treated like a bad guy. Pimple-faced, seemingly gullible Stan seems to be regarded the same way, at least by Lupin early on in DH. I suspect that Lupin would have killed Stan if he'd encountered him in the Battle of Hogwarts, but maybe he'd have remembered what Harry said about killing people who get in his way being Voldemort's job.) I wonder, BTW, which House Stan was Sorted into. He must have received a Hogwarts letter as a magical child recorded by the magical quill, and surely he would not have turned down the invitation. (He becomes a conductor on the Knight Bus, not on a Muggle bus or train, indicating that he's at home in the WW, as do the remarks you quoted.) Another possibility for the Muggle-born DE is Fenrir Greyback, but he's not a full-fledged DE (AFAIK, he wasn't part of the chase in the Seven Potters segment) and IMO, he's probably not a Muggleborn. The likelihood of a child of Muggles being bitten by a werewolf *and* becoming a wizard (learning to Apparate despite not being allowed to attend Hogwarts) is just too slim in my opinion. Anyway, one question I wish that JKR had answered in DH is what happened to the Imperius victims, at least three of whom we know by name, assuming that Stan is one. (The third is Rosmerta, Imperiused in HBP.) I'm not counting Travers, who seems to have gotten over Harry's weak Imperius sufficiently to fight on LV's side in the Battle of Hogwarts. (We're not told what happens to the old goblin, either, but if Travers got over it, he probably did, too.) Catlady: > If Pettigrew were Muggle-born, his special circumstance that led LV to allow him to join the DEs was that he was the Potters' Secret Keeper. If Shunpike was Muggle-born and if Shunpike was a DE, what was his special circumstance? Carol: He certainly seems to like glory, whether it's the reflected glory of being seen by the Minister of Magic in Harry Potter's company or the imaginary glory of being in line to be "the youngest ever Minister for Magic." Later, he boasts to his friends that he has a connection with Death Eaters, surely for similar reasons, and finds himself in Azkaban as a consequence. (Evidently, joking about DEs in the 1990s WW is like joking about a bomb in an airport in our own world. Or bragging that you have Al-Quida connections might be a closer analogy.) But that explains only Stan's motivation, not why DD would accept his services if he were Muggle-born. Maybe he's only allowed to wear a DE robe and hood but doesn't have a Dark Mark, a la Greyback, yet he's flying with the DEs and chasing Harry, which suggests that, yes, he's a DE, despite the dazed look on his face that Harry interprets as indicating that he's Imperiused. (We didn't see any such indication with Rosmerta or Pius Thicknesse. In fact, he seems to be people who are Confunded, such as Confundungus, who have that look.) I'm quite aware that I haven't presented a convincing argument, only various points tossed together to make of what we will. I think you're right that Stan's not a Muggle-born, but is he a DE or just a fellow prisoner who was freed with the DEs and then Imperiused? I'm beginning to think that they started brainwashing/recruiting him when he was in prison, and by the time of the prison breakout, he'd been persuaded that he was on their side along. Not the brightest young man in the WW, our Stan. Catlady: > The Goblins put the Muggle money back into circulation, but I'm not > sure that means they do all the trading with Muggles. Anyway, even > Goblins would find it difficult to trade with Muggles if all the > Muggle factories and shops and farms have been destroyed and most > Muggles have been killed or fled to another country, as part of LV > enjoying destruction. Carol responds: Not to mention that Goblins trading with Muggles would be a rather serious breach of the Statute of Secrecy and require a lot of Memory Charms that could be easily avoided by having the Muggles deal with Squibs or undercover wizards. (If LV were in power, fully and effectively and not sidetracked by the search for a more powerful wand, trade with Muggles would probably be eliminated, and any Muggles who survived would be enslaved. Muggle money would be worthless pieces of paper, with the coins melted down and any real silver or gold extracted out of them. Just my unproveable opinion.) > Catlady: I think most of her remarks that strike you as forbidding readers to interpret were really intended to protest that she has a right to have opinions about the characters just like the rest of us. Carol: Of course, she has the right to have opinions about her own characters. But it still sounds to me as if she sees the views she expresses in interviews as equal to what's in the books and her own "intentions" as indisputably present in canon. She reminds me of Petunia viewing Dudley as perfect and thinking that she perfectly understands him. Editors and literary critics exist for a reason; authors are seldom if ever the best judges of their own books, just as we on this list are seldom the best judges of the persuasiveness of our own arguments, being already persuaded, in most cases, that we're right. > Carol: > << Ron knowing about the Hand of Glory that Draco supposedly owned >> Catlady: > I promise you on my word of honor -- on the lives of my cats! -- Carol: No, no! Not your cats! Catlady: that it never occurred to me that that was an inconsistency. I promise you that I immediately assumed, without even thinking about it, that Draco had bought the Hand of Glory from Borgin & Burkes on some later occasion than the one Harry saw, and that Ron knew about it because he had seen Draco showing it off at Hogwarts. Carol responds: And I swear to you on my honor (not on the lives of my nonexistent cats, though--How about the soul of my father, Domingo Montoya--never mind!) that I *did* notice the inconsistency immediately, and it bothered me. Neither Ron nor Harry could have seen Draco showing off the Hand of Glory at Hogwarts. It was a Dark artifact and would have been confiscated (surely, neither Filch nor Snape would have allowed it, nor would any other teacher or staff member). Filch was searching students for Dark Artifacts in HBP, and Draco had no reason to buy it before that (and if he somehow got it past Filch and was showing it off in the Slytherin common room, Harry wouldn't know). What Harry saw, and did not report to Ron on-page even though he had the opportunity, was Lucius *refusing* to buy Draco the Hand of Glory in CoS. The time to mention it (since it wasn't referred to again in CoS) would have been in HBP when HRH followed Draco to Borgin and Burkes to find out what he was up to, but JKR missed that opportunity, too, instead having it seem that Draco had it all along and Ron knew about it. We still don't know how he got it or how it was smuggled into the school; maybe Borgin was under orders to hand it over to the DEs when the cabinet was repaired. (We really don't know how Draco did much of anything in HBP thanks to his refusal to share information with Snape and the limitations of Harry's PoV. I want to know more about Imperiused Rosmerta and how the necklace came into her hands, but that's never explained, either.) > Catlady: > At the time I assumed that he'd bought it by owl order early in the > CoS school year, but now I realise that, if he had, it would have > added to the Trio's suspicion of Draco, or at least been mentioned > when they Polyjuiced into the Slytherin common room. So maybe he > bought it over the summer after CoS. Anyway, long enough before HBP > that the new anti-Dark detectors weren't in place. Carol: Maybe, but how would Harry and Ron have known about it? And even if Filch, who was confiscating everything from Fanged Frisbees to Weasley's Wizarding Wheezes, didn't find it, Mrs. Norris can spot trouble a mile away. I doubt that he bought it before he had a use for it (the Vanishing Cabinet plan). And if he'd bought it earlier and kept it at home, Arthur Weasley's second raid on the Malfoy Manor (in HBP) would have discovered it. Nope. IMO, it's just like Sirius Black's letter in DH, which is inexplicably in 12 GP and refers to a date much too early for DD to have the Invisibility Cloak or Wormtail, not yet the Secret Keeper, to be plotting betrayal. Catlady: > I wished that MacGonagall's sentence that began: "That was certainly gallant, Potter, but --" had ended "but a Stunning Spell or the Full-Body Bind would have stopped him longer." But then she would have had to use the Full-Body Bind and Mobilicorpus instead of Imperius to pile the DEs like cordwood. Carol: Exactly. > Catlady: > But it was perfectly possible for the letter to be at 12 Grimmauld > Place. If the home that Sirius bought when he was 16 was left alone > while he was in Azkaban, he had time in GoF and OoP to go there (or > send Remus there) and gather up relics that he wanted to brood other. Carol: But you're having to reach for a logical explanation here. None is given in the books, possibly because JKR forgot that it would not have been sent to that address in the first place. I've given my reasons for thinking that Slytherin students could easily have been among the crowd that Slughorn led, but the narrator's limited point of view can't explain that letter. I prefer the simplest explanation, the same was as for the Prefect badge being the wrong color(s) and Ron's knowing about Draco's Hand of Glory: JKR forgot what she'd previously written. > Carol, snipping the stuff we agree on and hoping with all her heart that "hiser" and "himer" don't become part of the English language From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 01:31:13 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 01:31:13 -0000 Subject: Occlumency lessons WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180422 Mike wrote: > Try this one, Anne. :) Dumbledore said he saw the shadow of Voldemort behind Harry's eyes after the Arthur-gets-bit episode. So when Dumbledore says "open your mind even further to Voldemort" was he> referring to the soul bit or the newly embodied LV? > Dumbledore could have been afraid of giving the soul piece more incentive to take over Harry's mind, if it perceived DD as trying to block it from connecting to the father ship. An incentive that it probably wouldn't have if Harry was being taught by Snape, a perceived ally. > > If this was the case, the two-way connection to LV wasn't the reason for the lessons arraingements, and Snape was never in danger of being caught out by Voldemort. It was the danger from within Harry that Dumbledore was worried about. Furthermore, this makes Dumbledore wrong on two counts: > 1) Occlumency was never going to shut off the connection. The mind > penetration was the condition, with the soul piece inside of Harry. > The only way to block it was to remove the soul piece, not something > Occlumency was going to do. > 2) Harry's ability to see out of Voldemort's mind/eyes was both > exploitable, as Harry used it in DH, and not a danger per se to > Harry. Even if DD was referring to the parasite growing stronger, he > was underestimating Harry's strength while at the same time extolling and counting on it, imo. > > And we still wouldn't know if the lessons made Harry more suseptable > to inputs from the embodied Voldemort. > > What did I miss? I know I missed something, but can't for the life of me figure out what it is? Carol responds: I agree with you about the connection being (mostly) one-way and Snape not being in danger. But what you're missing, IMO, is that LV could--and did--exploit the connection by putting his own dream of getting into the MoM into Harry's mind so that he, too, would want to find out what was in the Prophecy, and when that failed, he sent Harry the false vision of Sirius Black being tortured in the MoM, knowing that he would think it was true, having had a similar, true vision of Mr. Weasley attacked by the snake. Had Harry actually used Occlumency, perhaps he could have blocked the dreams and, more important, the false vision. But Snape was not allowed to tell him about the Prophecy (DD didn't want him to know). All he could do was tell Harry to close his mind and try to force him to learn to do so, meanwhile reporting those dangerous glimpses into Voldemort's mind (dangerous because LV was trying to lure Harry to the MoM) to DD. That's why Snape became angry when "that man and that room" were in Harry's mind and "unnerved" when Harry asks him what's in the Department of Mysteries. Carol, who thinks that Harry's ability to control when he does and does not see the visions in DH is both a form of Occlumency and a good thing From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Mon Jan 7 01:32:14 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 01:32:14 -0000 Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now? In-Reply-To: <8CA1E5D0A677DBE-F7C-50BF@MBLK-M21.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180423 SnapesSlytherin: > > Hello all!? I know my personal reason for staying out of the posting is that it feels like the same thing over and over again (and I'm sure everyone's answer to this is the same thing over and over again lol).? It's the 24 hours, the "Are Slytherins evil?," and Sirius v. Severus.? I guess it's hard for people who have been on the list so long to change what they think (especially now that DH is out).? I know I'm not changing how much I love Severus, my belief that Dumbledore totally screwed up when he gave Gryffindor those additional points at the end of PS, or that JKR can't keep a plot straight to save Harry's life.? I definitely will *not* be reading anything else JKR writes (...well...outside the encyclopedia -- although I'm afraid of that for entirely other reasons).? I only stayed with the books after OoP because I was invested in the characters; I couldn't stand the shaky plots and seemingly OOC actions almost all of the characters had.? The chapter discussions are going fabulously, but it's something you learn after your second theme party: it's all been done before. > > Oryomai Tiffany: I was busy with college finals & term papers during late November & most of December, not only that but shopping for Xmas & working at an office on Saturdays also. I also took the time to review my notes on the HP canon so far & compare them with other HP lovers at U. of Minnesota I know of personally. I also bought some more HP stuff & cleaned out my house of any stuff I didn't need. I personally couldn't stand how many plot holes & incosistencies in DH I found there, but the theme & element development remained rock solid, so it's no big deal for me there. I took a while to warm up to how DH ended because I love a classic Hollywood/fairy tale ending, but by the 2nd time around I was on board with the ending. I just hope that JKR can keep her facts straight better when the encyclopedia comes out. From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Mon Jan 7 02:05:50 2008 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:05:50 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ som... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180424 > Sandy: > She had also changed the statement about Luna. In the interview Luna > was not married, in the live chat Luna was married to Whoever > Scamander. > > Potioncat: > In the interview I saw, she was asked if Luna and Neville got > together. She seemed surprised and said that was a good idea, or > something like that, but didn't indicate who they had married if > anyone. But I don't recall her saying that Luna hadn't married. I have not seen or read the interviews but visited JKR's website yesterday and there is a sheet of paper on the table in the 'secret room' with family trees of post-Hogwarts marriages and their kids. Luna is married to someone named Rolf, if I read JKR's writing correctly. There were no kids shown. From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net Mon Jan 7 02:26:50 2008 From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:26:50 -0000 Subject: Biggest DH dissapointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180425 > va32h: > > Hermione never read about it in a book? Although she did say back in > PS that she'd read about Harry in "Great Wizarding Events of the 20th > Century." > > Still - you'd think she'd have said during the camping trip "yes I > know you want to go to Godric's Hollow and see the memorial to your > parents but I just don't think it's safe..." Pippin Fowler: I think the memorial and other things about Lily weren't told to Harry because they were probably things everyone assumed someone else already told him--and/or those of the WW are as uncomfortable with death- related things as many Muggles. Pippin Fowler From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 02:50:17 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:50:17 -0000 Subject: Respect / Unforgettable moments LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180426 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > But see again, I am just not sure how he will be different > character. I mean besides the fact that he will be interested > in men instead of women. zanooda: Hehe, I gather from your "no difference" point of view that you don't read books imagining yourself one of the characters, or just imagining yourself there, kinda like an extra character :-). I don't read this way anymore either, but I used to, a lot, in my childhood and youth. I can see that, unlike me, you never read about Andrey's love life and thought "If only *I* was there instead of this stupid Natasha!" (I was Natasha's age back then :-). So, yeah, him liking men would change a lot for me :-). Just kidding, of course, but, seriously, I think it's pointless to go on arguing - we obviously can't convince each other :-). I suppose things like this are very individual. It's OK, we may disagree, but I still like you and your posts a whole lot :-)! > Alla: > We already decided that for Andrey it would change things, yes, but > again only in his love life, no? Oh, but that's the most interesting storyline in "War and Peace" :-)! I remember I always skipped the "war" parts to get to the "peace" parts :-). > Alla: > Now we have Dumbledore and we know, well pretty much nothing about > his love life before DH. Oh yeah, and I was soo fine with it :-)! DD was always an asexual being in my head. Well, not anymore ... . > Alla: > She says he was gay in the interview, so all that one can > do IF and only if one wishes to is to add this little > information about Dumbledore to their mental picture, no? It doesn't work this way, not for me. See, I obviously don't want to "add this information to my mental picture" :-), but, as the information was already given, it keeps creeping into my head! This is exactly my objection and the source of my confusion. > Alla: > What changed in Dumbledore as you knew him in the books? Wow, I would really prefer not to go into this :-). It's not something that I can convince you of with quotes from the book, because it's not in the book, only in my head (but it was JKR who put it there :-). You don't feel it - good for you :-)! Unfortunately it's not the same for me ;-(. > Alla: > I mean, again I understand confusion but only to a small degree. It's all right, I'll take it :-)! Thank you for trying! But, me too, I feel how I feel, and there is nothing I can do about it :-), sorry! DD became different to me (not "bad" different, just different), and his two different images are all mixed up in my head! zanooda, going back to reading DH in translation, where Harry thinks of DD as his "Teacher" (with the capital T) instead of Headmaster :-). From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Jan 7 03:34:22 2008 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:34:22 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFE68D2B@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180427 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > > Steve: > In a recent discussion someone accused someone else of rewriting > the books. I think the subject in question was whether Slytherin > parents or students returned to the castle to defend Hogwarts. > And perhaps there was some truth to the accusation. > > So, what if we speculatively rewrite the books, in fact, why > don't we all do it right now? > Allie: I haven't read all the way down this thread yet, so I don't know if this one was mentioned, but I felt that Draco Malfoy should have been more helpful (to the trio) during that scene in the Manor. By this point, he's seen how horrible things have become for his family under the Death Eaters, and I think it should have been more like, "Look Draco, is this Potter and his friends?" He says something like "I don't know, yeah it could be them" but I thought he should have tried to help them a little. "This girl's as ugly as Granger, but her teeth are too small." So they know he still hates them, but doesn't want them dead, and doesn't want Voldemort to win. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Mon Jan 7 07:47:54 2008 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 02:47:54 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ som... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180428 Sandy: A week or so after the book was released I watched, and taped, an interview she did with one of the major USA networks, and can't remember which it was. The very next day she did a live chat on the internet, was asked the same question, but this time she gave a different answer. Potioncat: If I'm thinking of the same interview, I agree that was a big mistake, which makes no sense at all. And if it was the same interview, it wasn't live--the network one, I mean. I don't know how long before it had been filmed, but it wasn't live. So there may have been more time than one day between the network interview and the live chat. Still---Ron'network interview and t mistake. Did we ever find out which one was correct? (I was sure he would be a Healer!) Sandy responds: I didn't mean to mislead, I was aware of the fact that the interview had been taped the previous week. It just happened that the interview was aired one day and the live chat took place the following day. So, no, it wasn't that she had changed her mind overnight; it was about a week. But the timing wasn't the point; the change was. Did she forget? Did she change her mind? Either way, it was unforgivable. By the time she finished the epilogue she should have decided, and known, what their professions were, and stuck to it. And, no, *I* never found out which one she decided to stick with. Sandy: She had also changed the statement about Luna. In the interview Luna was not married, in the live chat Luna was married to Whoever Scamander. Potioncat: In the interview I saw, she was asked if Luna and Neville got together. She seemed surprised and said that was a good idea, or something like that, but didn't indicate who they had married if anyone. But I don't recall her saying that Luna hadn't married. Sandy again: I honestly don't remember if it was the same interview, but she clearly stated that she imagined Luna was traveling the world searching for strange and unusual creatures, and she did not mention her being married; that came in a later interview. Potioncat: I tried to find a link for the Dateline interview that I think you may be referring to. I have a link to the actual video of it----I think. But I couldn't find a transcript. Sandy: _http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/#20037150_ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/#20037150) This is the link to the Dateline video where she talks about Harry and Ron being aurors. It does not include what she said about Neville and Luna. It was the only video I could find that was relevant to this discussion, and I am not aware of a written transcript. I have been unable to find a record or transcript of the live chat, but it was then that she changed Ron to working at the shop. Sandy **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rlevatter at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 08:08:22 2008 From: rlevatter at yahoo.com (rlevatter) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:08:22 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180429 Well, I'm new to this group and obviously the archive is huge, so my apologies if this has been asked/answered already. But there's a passage in book 5, OoP, that bothers me. If it's a mistake, it seems such a basic error I can't believe JKR made it. So I think I must be misinterpreting, but what's your take. Defining terms: Mudblood: a witch/wizard with two Muggle parents Half-blood: a witch/wizard with one Muggle and one Magic parent Pure-blood: a witch/wizard with two Magic parents >From bottom of page 842 (paperback edition), OoP [Dumbledore explaining the prophesy to Harry]: "He [Voldemort] chose the boy he thought most likely to be a danger to him...and notice this, Harry. He chose, not the pureblood [Neville Longbottom] (which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being or knowing), but the half-blood, like himself." Voldemort IS a half-blood, witch mother and Muggle father. And Neville is a pureblood, whose parents were both magical. But Harry is also a pureblood, is he not? Both James and Lily were magical. Lily was a Mudblood, but James' magical geneology goes back many generations. Surely if being a pureblood meant not merely that one's parents were magical but that each line was magical for many generations, only a small number of inbreeding families could still be purebloods. Voldemort and Snape were both half-bloods, both with Muggle fathers, but it makes no sense to call Harry a half-blood. Or does it? What am I missing? RL From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 09:46:39 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:46:39 -0000 Subject: HouseElves/Pettigrew/Shunpike/Bertha/Slytherin/Rewrites/Economic/Carol, Carol In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180430 > A_svirn wrote in > : > > << I am saying that from purely human point of view it is impossible > to treat your own slave with respect, because owning him or her is in > itself disrespectful. >> > > Catlady: > That depends on the what 'respect' means, or on what Respect is. > Perhaps the list has gotten slow enough that such abstract and OT > discussions will be allowed. a_svirn: I guess I'll have to wait until that time to understand how it is possible to treat one's own slave with respect, while still owning and making use of them. > Carol: > << I also hated Harry's casting the Crucio, but neither incident > ruined the book for me. >> > > Catlady: > I wished that MacGonagall's sentence that began: "That was certainly > gallant, Potter, but --" had ended "but a Stunning Spell or the > Full-Body Bind would have stopped him longer." a_svirn: I don't see what difference it would have made. Torturing people isn't gallant whichever way you slice it. Must have been some peculiar Gryffindor logic. > Carol wrote in > : > > << his interpreting "Neither can live while the other survives" as > "One of us has to kill the other" makes no sense, either, at least to > me. >> > > Catlady: > This is another forbidden "I agree" post. I wish someone could explain > that prophecy so that it makes sense to me. I wish it was "Neither can > die while the other survives", which I could understand. a_svirn: Yes, so would I. When I finished DH I thought my English is horribly deficient, because I simply couldn't see how "neither can live while the other survives" can be translated into "one cannot be killed, while the other lives". I still don't see it. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 10:49:25 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:49:25 -0000 Subject: That "Love" thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180431 > > Betsy Hp: > > To my mind, this is the most messed up definition of love, and the > > most messed up way to study love I've ever heard of. Create a false > > illusion of obsession and lust and *that's* supposed to teach you > > about love? THAT'S what's in the "love room"?!? > a_svirn: Yeah, unspeakable, isn't it? Then again, perhaps we are meant to think of the Department of Mysteries as of one big red herring of the series? I mean, what about the Veil? I was certain that there was a reason for Sirius to have died the way he did. But it seems now that he could have been killed off in a more conventional way without affecting the plot any. And the Prophesy business is pretty murky as well. Prophets are notoriously "imperfect speakers" but that particular wording simply does not work, whichever way you look at it. I have a sneaking suspicion that the entire division is a very well paid sinecure for the top-secret wizards. It is an advantage of doing something top- secret -- one can demand funding without having to give an account for oneself. And it wouldn't be difficult to pull the wool over Fudge's eyes, anyway. a_svirn From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 7 12:27:35 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:27:35 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180432 "rlevatter" wrote: > > Well, I'm new to this group and obviously the archive is huge, > so my apologies if this has been asked/answered already. snip Surely if being a > pureblood meant not merely that one's parents were magical > but that each line was magical for many generations, only a > small number of inbreeding families could still be purebloods. > Voldemort and Snape were both half-bloods, both with Muggle > fathers, but it makes no sense to call Harry a half-blood. > > Or does it? What am I missing? Potioncat: Welcome to the group. What are you missing? The effects of bigotry on people. To LV's gang, being Muggleborn was the same as being a Muggle. So Lily counts as Muggle. Actually, Muggleborns are "worse" than Muggles, because the Muggleborn stole magic. Which I guess is why there are Squibs. (In the minds of the radical Purebloods.) Another way of looking at Half-blood is by grandparents. If you have 2 Muggle grandparents, you are half blood. It doesn't appear that anyone bothers breaking things down beyond half. And you're right, at least according to Hagrid and I think Hermione. Very few of the Pureblood families are really Pure. From trekkie at stofanet.dk Mon Jan 7 12:44:28 2008 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:44:28 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Explain This Passage Message-ID: <47821EAC.9070700@stofanet.dk> No: HPFGUIDX 180433 On 07-01-2008 13:27:35, potioncat (willsonkmom at msn.com) wrote: > "rlevatter" wrote: > > > > Well, > I'm new to this group and obviously the archive is huge, > > so my apologies if this has been asked/answered already. > snip > Surely if being a > > pureblood meant not merely that one's > parents were magical > > but that each line was magical for many generations, only a > > small number of inbreeding families could still be purebloods. > > Voldemort and Snape were both half-bloods, both with Muggle > > fathers, but it makes no sense to call Harry a half-blood. > > > > Or does it? What am I missing? > > Potioncat: > Welcome to the group. > > What are you missing? The effects of bigotry on people. To > LV's gang, > being Muggleborn was the same as being a Muggle. So Lily counts as > Muggle. Actually, Muggleborns are "worse" than Muggles, because the > Muggleborn stole magic. Which I guess is why there are Squibs. (In > the minds of the radical Purebloods.) [snip] But squibs are found in pureblood families too. Remember how everyone in Neville's family thought he was a squib at first. Granted they were wrong in that case, but if it wouldn't occur then why would they worry about it in the first place? Neville is pureblood as far as I know. And I know that facts has never disturbed radical people in believing they're right regardless, but I just don't think the "squib" thing has to do with purebloods/halfbloods. ~Trekkie From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 7 12:58:00 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:58:00 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: <47821EAC.9070700@stofanet.dk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180434 TrekkieGrrrl wrote: > And I know that facts has never disturbed radical people in believing > they're right regardless, but I just don't think the "squib" thing has > to do with purebloods/halfbloods. Potioncat: In DH--but I don't remember where, or who says it--the comment is made that Muggleborns' magic is stolen. So I'm taking the next step --that they stole it from some other child, hence an explanation for Sqibs. Sort of like Changlings. A Pureblood could be a Squib because some Muggleborn stole his magic. And since we're still on this topic. I have the feeling that Deloris isn't so pure herself. Stealing a locket to make her Selwyn connection, for example. From wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au Mon Jan 7 09:35:58 2008 From: wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au (Lesley McKenna) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 01:35:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Explain This Passage Message-ID: <595787.33897.qm@web59103.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180435 RL wrote: >>> Voldemort IS a half-blood, witch mother and Muggle father. And Neville is a pureblood, whose parents were both magical. But Harry is also a pureblood, is he not? Both James and Lily were magical. Lily was a Mudblood, but James' magical geneology goes back many generations. Surely if being a pureblood meant not merely that one's parents were magical but that each line was magical for many generations, only a small number of inbreeding families could still be purebloods. Voldemort and Snape were both half-bloods, both with Muggle fathers, but it makes no sense to call Harry a half-blood. Or does it? What am I missing? <<< lesley/wrappedinharry: >From my undertanding of things, I was of the opinion that 'purebloods' like the Malfoys thought any witch or wizard with known Muggles in their family tree were not considered Pureblood. It is explained to Harry (and I cannot remember where or by whom) that he would not be considered pureblood because his mother's parents were Muggles. And I am sure it is Hagrid who tells HArry that there is no such thing as a pureblood anymore because there were just not enough of them around and if they hadn't bred with Muggles somewhere in the past, wizards would have died out. Just recollections I am afraid. lesley/wrappedinharry From dreamyclaire at hotmail.co.uk Mon Jan 7 11:48:43 2008 From: dreamyclaire at hotmail.co.uk (clairekennyplatt) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:48:43 -0000 Subject: HouseElves/Pettigrew/Shunpike/Bertha/Slytherin/Rewrites/Economic/Carol, Carol In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180436 > Carol wrote in > : > > << his interpreting "Neither can live while the other survives" as > "One of us has to kill the other" makes no sense, either, at least to > me. >> Dreamyclaire: I have always taken this not to mean live in the sense of life or death but in the sense of having a life of their own. In Harry's case going to Hogwarts in peace, living the life he would have had if Voldemort had never been. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jan 7 15:15:10 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:15:10 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: <47821EAC.9070700@stofanet.dk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180437 > > Potioncat: > > Welcome to the group. > > > > What are you missing? The effects of bigotry on people. To > > LV's gang, > > being Muggleborn was the same as being a Muggle. So Lily counts as > > Muggle. Actually, Muggleborns are "worse" than Muggles, because the > > Muggleborn stole magic. Which I guess is why there are Squibs. (In > > the minds of the radical Purebloods.) > [snip] Trekkie: > > But squibs are found in pureblood families too. Remember how everyone in > Neville's family thought he was a squib at first. Granted they were > wrong in that case, but if it wouldn't occur then why would they worry > about it in the first place? Neville is pureblood as far as I know. > > And I know that facts has never disturbed radical people in believing > they're right regardless, but I just don't think the "squib" thing has > to do with purebloods/halfbloods. Magpie: I believe that Potioncat is suggesting that if people believe Muggleborns have magic because the "stole it" then Squibs must be the people they "stole it" from. That idea comes from the Ministry's claiming that Muggleborns stole magic and that this is why they must be brought in. I don't agree, myself. Draco and others have been the voice of bigotry in the WW since PS and there's never been any hint that they think Muggleborns stole anything. That was just thrown in in DH as the reason the Ministry was going after Muggleborns. I don't think anybody had to actually believe it. The series never went into exactly what the feeling was that was supposed to rationalize prejudice against Muggles but we did get some hints--Draco once says they just "don't know our ways" and then there's the stuff about their blood not being pure, both of which make more sense than the idea that anybody believes that it's possible to steal magic from someone else. That opens a new set of worms that never goes anywhere- -if Muggles can steal magic why are they Muggles? Since when can magic be stolen? So I think Rowling just made that up in DH as the false pretense the Ministry came up with for rounding up the wands of Muggleborns, and that that particular myth hadn't been used before. It was a disappointment for me in DH. Bigotry isn't really rational but the alleged reasons for it usually have some basis in the history and the beliefs of the people and this was out of left field only making sense as something everybody knows is a lie. I don't think she wanted to get into the actual mindset of why people would had and fear Muggleborns. -m From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 16:47:24 2008 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:47:24 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180438 > Potioncat: > Welcome to the group. > > What are you missing? The effects of bigotry on people. To LV's gang, > being Muggleborn was the same as being a Muggle. So Lily counts as > Muggle. Actually, Muggleborns are "worse" than Muggles, because the > Muggleborn stole magic. Which I guess is why there are Squibs. (In > the minds of the radical Purebloods.) lizzyben: This has always sort of confused me too, because everyone in the WW uses "half-blood" to refer to someone w/a Muggle-born parent. It's not just the bigots or the Death Eaters. And it is sort of odd, because Harry is the son of two magical wizards. If it's about the effects of bigotry, what does it say that that whole WW seems to view being the son of a Muggleborn wizard as the same as having a Muggle parent? He's the heir of Perevell, even. In contrast, Snape & Riddle are both the son of a witch and a Muggle. But they're all called half- blood, even though there's a big difference IMO. Harry's parents are both totally part of the wizarding world, & he would've grown up as a part of that world, while Snape & Riddle grew up as misfits in the Muggle world. Harry "belongs" from birth in a way that Snape didn't. He's not part of the "other" Muggle culture, the way that a child w/a Muggle father is. This is part of the reason that the whole Muggle-born tolerance thing leaves me a bit cold. Lily was as much a part of the wizarding culture as James by the time they graduated Hogwarts. Harry & Hermione are indoctrinated in the ways of the wizarding world at Hogwarts. I think someone mentioned that you can't tell a difference between muggleborn & non-muggleborn students, because they all eventually adopt the wizarding culture. Muggle-borns aren't a seperate culture w/different religion, customs, dress etc. Instead, from childhood they are totally assimilated & indoctrinated into the wizarding culture. So "muggleborn tolerance" doesn't really tell us anything about having tolerance for a *different* culture or group. Instead it's more like, let's tolerate this group who totally act, think, behave, and live like us. How is that tolerance? Isn't tolerance about accepting those cultures, religions, ethnicities, that are different from your own? But here the "good guys" are *tolerant* & accepting only of those that have adopted & become indoctrinated in their own culture, while remaining very intolerant of Muggle culture. So here you get all the fun of feeling "tolerant" without the difficulty of actually having to understand a different POV or accept a different culture. It's that "have cake & eat it too" thing again. lizzyben From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 16:49:21 2008 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:49:21 -0000 Subject: Biggest DH dissapointment - Lily and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180439 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > Hi, Leslie! I'm afraid I can't offer you a really convincing > theory, but I have a few ideas that you may find usable :-). Leslie41: Great! zanooda2: > By the time she chose James, Lily's friendship with Snape was long > over. Sirius and Lupin didn't say anything to Harry because for > them the two things are not connected: there was an entire school > year between them, a year when possibly Lily dated some other > boy(s) - surely such a beautiful girl would have had more admirers > than just James and Severus :-). Leslie41: Yeah, but they were extremely close and public friends for five years. It's not like people would "forget" that. zanooda2: > 2. Another thing: I don't think that many people at school knew > that Snape was in love with Lily. It's not like he sang serenades > under her window :-). I believe he was very discrete about his true > feelings. Leslie41: No, truthfully he wasn't discrete at all. After he called her a mudblood he literally planted himself at the entrance to Gryffindor tower until Lily came out. He told a girl named Mary *that he was going to sleep there* until he could talk to Lily. Who knows how many girls passed him by, whispering to each other, before he told Mary why he wouldn't leave? My guess is all of Gryffindor tower was abuzz that night. It's not a serenade under her window, no, but no one could interpret those actions as anything else but the actions of a boy terribly in love. And if not "in love," then in the throes of a friendship so strong that he was willing to suffer humiliation from any number of Gryffindors to talk to her. He absolutely did not try to hide why he was there. How would you interpret those actions? Do you think this girl named Mary would have kept these facts to herself? My guess is she told everyone, that every Gryffindor was talking about it that night, and that the next day everyone in the school knew. It's not logical to assume anything else. Sirius and James, the most popular Gryffindor of all, would have been the first to find out. I absolutely buy this whole scenario about Snape and Lily, and it makes excellent emotional sense in terms of his character. But it makes no logical sense that someone wouldn't have told Harry, and that's why it seems like a cheat. My guess is Rowling thought this aspect up later, well into the series, and could not tie up the loose ends. No fair. zanooda2: > He certainly was smart enough not to admit them to Lily, > knowing that she didn't feel the same way and he would only scare > her away if he told her. Leslie41: There's no indication he didn't tell her, but I think you're right. Still, people can tell when someone has strong feelings for them, even if they don't admit it. At some level Lily "knew". And Rowling actually admitted somewhere that if Snape hadn't chosen his path Lily could have in time loved him as she came to love James. zanooda2: > He was waiting patiently, hoping that maybe she > would come to love him at some point (this is JMO, of course). Leslie41: Yes, as I said Rowling herself admitted that. zanooda2: > I don't believe that others knew, they just thought Lily and Snape > were friendly, but parted ways at some point. Leslie41: See above. There's no way everyone couldn't have known, considering the tower scene. zanooda2: > 3. You will probably disagree with me, but I believe that Lily and > Sev called each other "best friends" more out of habit than > anything else. Being in the different houses, they just couldn't > spend enough time together to stay best friends. Leslie41: I don't think that's true. Obviously Snape helped her with Potions. And they're living in the same castle. There's huge amounts of unstructured free time that they could be together. Or how did Harry end up with Cho Chang, a Ravenclaw? Or good friends with Luna, also a Ravenclaw? zanooda2: > I'm not sure you will be satisfied with my answer (I am not exactly > satisfied myself :-), but it's the best I can do :-). Leslie41: Unfortunately I'm not. But that's not your fault--you're trying to construct reasons and Rowling hasn't given you anything to work with. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 17:20:53 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:20:53 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180440 > lizzyben: > > This has always sort of confused me too, because everyone in the WW > uses "half-blood" to refer to someone w/a Muggle-born parent. It's > not just the bigots or the Death Eaters. And it is sort of odd, > because Harry is the son of two magical wizards. If it's about the > effects of bigotry, what does it say that that whole WW seems to view > being the son of a Muggleborn wizard as the same as having a Muggle > parent? He's the heir of Perevell, even. In contrast, Snape & Riddle > are both the son of a witch and a Muggle. But they're all called half- > blood, even though there's a big difference IMO. a_svirn: Actually, there isn't. By *blood* Lily was a muggle ? there wasn't a drop of wizarding blood in her veins, since both her parents were muggles. It was only because of an odd quirk of nature that she got her wizading gene seemingly out of nowhere. So if we are to take blood into account at all there is no difference between Snape and Harry. The question is ? should we? Take it into account, I mean? Because I think the prejudice is not about *how* we measure wizading blood. The prejudice starts when we start to measure it at all. > lizzyben: > Harry's parents are both totally part of the wizarding world, & he > would've grown up as a part of that world, while Snape & Riddle grew > up as misfits in the Muggle world. Harry "belongs" from birth in a > way that Snape didn't. He's not part of the "other" Muggle culture, > the way that a child w/a Muggle father is. a_svirn: I think you are confusing nature and culture, so to speak. Harry could've been a part of wizading world if he had been raised as a wizard, but he wasn't because he hadn't. It has nothing to do with blood, and everything to do with his upbringing. a_svirn From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 7 17:40:32 2008 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:40:32 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180441 Steve: > > So, what if we speculatively rewrite the books, in fact, why > > don't we all do it right now? Allie: > I haven't read all the way down this thread yet, so I don't know if > this one was mentioned, but I felt that Draco Malfoy should have > been more helpful (to the trio) during that scene in the Manor. By > this point, he's seen how horrible things have become for his > family under the Death Eaters, and I think it should have been more > like, "Look Draco, is this Potter and his friends?" > > He says something like "I don't know, yeah it could be them" but I > thought he should have tried to help them a little. "This girl's > as ugly as Granger, but her teeth are too small." So they know he > still hates them, but doesn't want them dead, and doesn't want > Voldemort to win. SSSusan: While I can see why you would have wanted to see it play out this way (I'd have liked to have seen Draco make more of a visible move "toward the Light" myself), I can definitely understand why it played out exactly the way JKR wrote it in that scene. Why? Because I think Draco has gotten the message, LOUD AND CLEAR, by this point, that Voldemort can tell when someone is lying. Surely Snape would have mentioned that to Draco, having made sure (even) Harry understood it during Occlumency lessons. And in the 1st chapter of DH, when Voldemort asks Lucius why he's not happy that Voldemort is staying in his home, I think it's *very* clear to all those in attendance that, while Lucius can say whatever he likes, Voldy is not buying it -- he *knows* Lucius is lying. So, to me, for Draco to have gone as far as he did go in this scene -- not all the way to big-time lies that would've helped the Trio and shown them with certainty that he didn't want Voldy to win -- I think he went remarkably far as it was, knowing that Voldy might well be very, VERY angry with him if he discovered Draco wasn't telling the full truth. ::shudder:: Siriusly Snapey Susan From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 18:14:45 2008 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:14:45 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180442 lizzyben: "But they're all called half-blood, even though there's a big difference IMO." > a_svirn: > Actually, there isn't. By *blood* Lily was a muggle ? there wasn't a > drop of wizarding blood in her veins, since both her parents were > muggles. It was only because of an odd quirk of nature that she got > her wizading gene seemingly out of nowhere. So if we are to take > blood into account at all there is no difference between Snape and > Harry. The question is ? should we? Take it into account, I mean? > Because I think the prejudice is not about *how* we measure wizading > blood. The prejudice starts when we start to measure it at all. > lizzyben: Well, what I mean is that Lily is a witch, as much a part of the wizarding world as any pureblood. And according to JKR all wizards, even Muggleborns, have "wizarding blood" somewhere in their ancestry. So Harry has magic from both parents. James & Lily are as prominent in the WW as Lucius & Narcissa, maybe more. So Harry would've grown up with a high status in the wizarding world, his natural home. In contrast, Snape grew up as a misfit in the Muggle world. As did Riddle. Snape and Riddle had the experience of belonging in neither the wizarding world, nor the Muggle one. Whereas a child of two wizarding parents would've grown up as a part of the wizarding world. Lily Potter is a powerful witch & a part of the WW; Tobias Snape is not a wizard & is not a part of the WW. I don't think it's the same thing & that's why it's odd to me that both Harry & Snape are referred to as "half-bloods". There is a big difference in terms of culture - a "half-blood" w/two wizard parents would understand & be a part of the wizarding culture, while a child w/a non-wizard parent would instead grow up as part of the Muggle culture. Another oddity, to me, is that while the text seems to approve of Muggleborn/Wizard marriages, it seems to look down on Muggle/Wizard marriages. After all, the only two we hear about are totally dysfunctional & poisonous. So, it's not very approving of relationships between people of different cultures. It's not even very approving of marriages outside of one's own House. After all, the Trio all marry other Gryffindors. So we have this very insular viewpoint that is suspicious of relationships outside one's own narrow circle or own's own culture - yet it's *tolerant* because the heros marry Muggle-borns who are part of that narrow circle/culture. It's that duality that facinates me - the text makes the "half-blood" distinction based on wizard/muggleborn wizard, when the real distinction should be wizard/muggle. But by framing the issue in this way, the text gets us to see the good guys as "tolerant" & non- bigoted when they accept Muggle-borns, even though these wizards are as magical & as indoctrinated in wizarding culture as any pureblood. But if you interpret "half-blood" as a child of wizard/muggle parents, the picture suddenly looks very different. Wizard/muggle marriages are all unnatural & wrong, unhappy & miserable, leading to abuse & very messed-up kids. So, we get the messge - "keep to your own", don't go outside your own culture. Normally that would be seen as an intolerant, bigoted message. But because the text includes the children of two wizards as "half-bloods", that message is obscured. > a_svirn: > I think you are confusing nature and culture, so to speak. Harry > could've been a part of wizading world if he had been raised as a > wizard, but he wasn't because he hadn't. It has nothing to do with > blood, and everything to do with his upbringing. > > a_svirn > lizzyben: But his upbringing would have everything to do w/his blood. The child of two wizards w/the magic wizarding gene will grow up in the WW. Like Harry would have. The child of a Muggle & wizard will instead grow up in the "other" Muggle world, like Snape did. Blood determines which culture you grow up as a part of - and a child of two wizards (whether muggleborn or not) will grow up as a part of the wizarding world. One of Us. Whereas a child w/a Muggle parent will instead likely grow up in the Muggle culture. One of Them. And the text seems to say that it's great if a "half-blood" child has a muggleborn wizard parent. But it's really, really bad if a "half-blood" child has a Muggle parent. It goes back to the odd distinction the books make between intolerance of Muggleborns (bad), & intolerance towards Muggles (OK). Muggleborns are part of wizarding culture, while Muggles are not. So Muggleborns & the children of muggleborn wizards ARE part of wizarding culture. They've got the same powers, same education, same everything. By promoting tolerance of Muggleborn wizards, who are part of the WW, & by defining half-blood to include the children of Muggleborn wizards, the text hides the negative, intolerant messages about Muggle culture. It frames the issue in such a way that "tolerance" only means accepting people from one's own culture, while maintaining an attitude of suspicion, seperation & superiority toward another culture. lizzyben, not sure if this makes sense, but hitting send anyway. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 7 18:17:47 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:17:47 -0000 Subject: Biggest DH dissapointment - Lily and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180443 > zanooda2: > > > 2. Another thing: I don't think that many people at school knew > > that Snape was in love with Lily. It's not like he sang serenades > > under her window :-). I believe he was very discrete about his true > > feelings. > > Leslie41: > > No, truthfully he wasn't discrete at all. After he called her a > mudblood he literally planted himself at the entrance to Gryffindor > tower until Lily came out. > > How would you interpret those actions? Pippin: As a sixteen year old being over the top and emotional about losing his best friend. People must have wondered, but both of them would have denied a romance as thoroughly as Harry always denied having any romantic feelings for Hermione. In Snape's case he would have been lying, but he was good at that. Certainly he gave no sign of his feelings for her in the Pensieve scene. Lily had been having to defend her friendship with Snape for a while. No one could understand what she saw in him, and I'm sure that's the way Sirius and Lupin felt till the day they died. Why would they bring it up with Harry? To tell him what poor taste his mother had in friends? Harry shies away from discussing his parents with others. He never wants to know what the history books say about him, not even filtered through Hermione. The Dursleys did a very good job on him. But in any case, a lot of the people who knew Lily well died in the war, as Mad-eye's photograph shows. Mary might have been one of them. Rowling hinted as early as 1999 that there was something about Snape being in love that we would find out in Book Seven. I think that plotline was settled very early in the series. Of course Harry has to be amazingly ignorant and uncurious about his past for any of the plot to work at all. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 7 18:37:38 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:37:38 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180444 Lizzyben: . Another oddity, to me, is that while the text > seems to approve of Muggleborn/Wizard marriages, it seems to look > down on Muggle/Wizard marriages. After all, the only two we hear > about are totally dysfunctional & poisonous. Pippin: Nope. Seamus Finnegan's dad is a Muggle, and as far as we know the Finnegan family is just fine. They also don't seem to be cut off from the WW. We don't hear much about Seamus's dad, but there's no indication that he was unhappy once he got over the shock of learning he'd married a witch. The text shows that relationships between people who come from different cultures and can't assimilate are difficult -- who would argue with that? Pippin From bobjtc at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 14:23:35 2008 From: bobjtc at yahoo.com (Bob Connors) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 06:23:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Explain This Passage Message-ID: <601966.65202.qm@web52801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180445 lesley/wrappedinharry: 'And I am sure it is Hagrid who tells Harry that there is no such thing as a pure-blood anymore because there were just not enough of them around and if they hadn't bred with Muggles somewhere in the past, wizards would have died out. Just recollections I am afraid.' Bob Connors: It was Hagrid, I think it was in POA, and while you are very close to what he said, I just don't think he was so strong in his wording. Like the saying goes, never say never, always, etc. There will often be an exception. While we lack a true definition of what is a mud blood (in POA I thought that was anyone who was not pure, therefore their heritage was muddied). So there COULD be some pure bloods left. We just do not know how much 'mud' is needed. In the US, look at what we did with determining if someone was 'colored' or not. I think it went down to 1/16, if not further, and you were considered to be 'colored'. How much worse than that can you get? And that was true well into the 1950's, and later. But let's remember what we learned from English History, where royalty married within royalty. Any weak features became pronounced. The word 'in-breeding' comes to mind for me. The same with dogs. When bred too close in the same family tree, for the purpose of getting some features pronounced, we often have to live with things we did not want. I can give specific examples if you would like. Bob Connors From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 7 19:08:52 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 19:08:52 -0000 Subject: HouseElves/Pettigrew/Shunpike/Bertha/Slytherin/Rewrites/Economic/Carol, Carol In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180446 > a_svirn: > I guess I'll have to wait until that time to understand how it is > possible to treat one's own slave with respect, while still owning > and making use of them. Pippin: I own and exploit my body, but if I don't treat it with respect, I'll be in for a world of hurt. At the age of 55+, I'm very much aware that I can't make it do whatever I want. > a_svirn: > I don't see what difference it would have made. Torturing people > isn't gallant whichever way you slice it. Must have been some > peculiar Gryffindor logic. Pippin: As in the scene with Dudley at the beginning of OOP, Harry's initial intention was gallant -- to punish the tormentor of an innocent person. But then it felt so good to have an outlet for all the rage and frustration he'd been feeling. In Privet Drive the dementors sucked that feeling out of Harry before he could act on it (and seem to have sucked off all Dudley's good feelings about being a bully as well.) But nothing happened this time to interfere. As McGonagall immediately casts a triple patronus and uses an Unforgivable herself, I'd like her to have finished the sentence by saying "but when I need help from you, Potter, I'll ask for it." > > Catlady: > > This is another forbidden "I agree" post. I wish someone could > explain that prophecy so that it makes sense to me. I wish it was "Neither > can die while the other survives", which I could understand. > > a_svirn: > Yes, so would I. When I finished DH I thought my English is horribly > deficient, because I simply couldn't see how "neither can live while > the other survives" can be translated into "one cannot be killed, > while the other lives". I still don't see it. Pippin: The explanation's in "The Other Minister" - "Yes, alive," said Fudge. "That is--I don't know--is a man alive if he can't be killed? I don't really understand it and Dumbledore won't explain properly -- but anyway he's certainly got a body and is walking and talking and killing, so I suppose, for the purposes of our discussion, yes, he's alive." But not for the purposes of the prophecy, evidently. Pippin From rlevatter at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 16:26:23 2008 From: rlevatter at yahoo.com (rlevatter) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:26:23 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: <595787.33897.qm@web59103.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180447 lesley/wrappedinharry: > From my undertanding of things, I was of the opinion > that 'purebloods' like the Malfoys thought any witch or wizard with > known Muggles in their family tree were not considered Pureblood. > > It is explained to Harry (and I cannot remember where or by whom) > that he would not be considered pureblood because his mother's > parents were Muggles. I don't recall this passage. But if true it seems there are two separate definitions of "half-blood". Some, like Snape and Voldemort, have a Muggle parent, and some, like Harry, have no Muggle parents. If you define "half-blood" as Muggle or Mudblood parent, it would follow that Ron's children (with Hermione) are no longer pureblood, while Ginny's children (with Harry) ARE pureblood even though Harry isn't. (Not that any of them care, but why would Ron warn his child not to marry a pureblood--it would upset granddad Arthur--if they weren't purebloods themselves already?) lesley/wrappedinharry: > And I am sure it is Hagrid who tells Hrry that there is no such > thing as a pureblood anymore because there were just not enough of > them around and if they hadn't bred with Muggles somewhere in the > past, wizards would have died out. Yes, I recall this passage, but it doesn't help because in the passage to which I refer, Dumbledore is making a clear distinction between Harry and Neville. Neville is a pureblood for the purposes of Dumbledore's discussion. RL From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 7 19:23:28 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 19:23:28 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: <601966.65202.qm@web52801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180448 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bob Connors wrote: > > lesley/wrappedinharry: > 'And I am sure it is Hagrid who tells Harry that there is no such thing as a pure-blood anymore because there were just not enough of them around and if they hadn't bred with Muggles somewhere in the past, wizards would have died out. > > Just recollections I am afraid.' > > > Bob Connors: > It was Hagrid, I think it was in POA, and while you are very close to what he said, I just don't think he was so strong in his wording. Like the saying goes, never say never, always, etc. There will often be an exception. While we lack a true definition of what is a mud blood (in POA I thought that was anyone who was not pure, therefore their heritage was muddied). So there COULD be some pure bloods left. We just do not know how much 'mud' is needed. > Pippin: I believe you're thinking of Ron, in CoS. "It's ridiculous. Most wizards these days are half-blood anyway. If we hadn't married Muggles we'd have died out." -CoS ch 7 Ron, though he comes from a pureblood family, clearly hasn't been taught to think himself superior on account of it. It's useless, IMO, to try to apply scientific classification to a distinction made on unscientific grounds. AFAWK, there is no physical difference between the Muggleborn and other wizards. Calling someone Half-blood is a matter of pattern-matching and association rather than taxonomy, so of course logic can't account for it. There is no characteristic which all wizards who are called Half-bloods share which distinguishes them from all thel wizards who aren't called Half-bloods -- except being called Half-blood. Pippin From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Mon Jan 7 20:39:44 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:39:44 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ som... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180449 > Sandy: > > _http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/#20037150_ > (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/#20037150) > This is the link to the Dateline video where she talks about Harry and Ron being aurors. It does not include what she said about Neville and Luna. It was the only video I could find that was relevant to this discussion, and I am not aware of a written transcript. I have been unable to find a record or transcript of the live chat, but it was then that she changed Ron to working at the shop. Sandy Tiffany; I also remember an interview with Barbara Walters she did where JKR was named as the most fascinating person of 2007. I also watched the Dateline interview & can't if there was a mention of Neville or Luna off-hand, but she definitely discussed the aurors of Harry & Ron. I'm unaware of a written transcript, but if you contacted either NBC or Dateline directly, you could find out yourself. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Jan 7 21:42:28 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 13:42:28 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Respect In-Reply-To: <477FDC04.5070601@telus.net> References: <477FDC04.5070601@telus.net> Message-ID: <2795713f0801071342s1038f783v87fb11f9d70b3db6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180450 KJ: throughout the books, the characters grew in age, in thought, in moral fibre, and in magical strength. In the last book, that didn't seem to happen. Lynda: Let's see. They certainly aged. Ron and Hermione turned eighteen in the course of the book. Hermione dresses like a beautiful young lady for Bill and Fleur's wedding, manages the mobile household of the three travelers well as well as doing most of the stragegic planning (I'm thinking of the books, clothing, tents, etc, that she packs into her bag). They make adult decisions during the book, on their own and they're certainly using spells they didn't use before, regardless of whether or not they were verbal or nonverbal. I've long been of the opinion that it is the intent of the wizard or witch that makes a spell dark magic or not, so that doesn't bother me so much. KJ: We watched Hermione grow from a child who would do anything to succeed, or gain approval to one who seemed to go nowhere at the end. Lynda: I totally missed that. Apparently, she chose a career in magical law after the conclusion of the series. That doesn't seem like going nowhere to me. Yes I know that that's extra cananocal, but that's what we've got, and frankly, I did not really think that the final book would focus so much on Hermione. It's still part of Harry's story. KJ: We didn't see her being used the same way in the last book. We saw Harry, the epitome of good in the entire series, using Unforgiveables in the last book. Why? Lynda: Because he was fighting for his life and the lives of his friends and companions and their families. As I mentioned earlier, the intent of the one casting the spell makes the magic dark, not the spell in and of itself. When fighting for one's life, extraordinary measures are permissable. KJ: He was out of control in HBP so it was understandable, but not in DH. There is no explanation for it. Lynda: Umm. I thought he was more in control in DH, myself. Just me, I'm sure. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Mon Jan 7 22:12:50 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:12:50 -0000 Subject: Respect In-Reply-To: <2795713f0801071342s1038f783v87fb11f9d70b3db6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180451 > KJ: > > throughout the books, the > characters grew in age, in thought, in moral fibre, and in magical > strength. In the last book, that didn't seem to happen. Tiffany: I loved how Harry came to age & realized his ideas on Slytherin in HBP were based on biases & previous encounters, so he thought the Slytherins were the worst of all the houses. I actually thought that Harry in DH did pretty admirably in terms of moral conduct. He may have used some Unforgivables in the battle, but he was fighting for his life. The use of the dark arts & black magic by Gryffindors in DH wasn't a big deal to me because the fate of both the WW & Potterverse was at stake. I just wished JKR would've done better at keeping her facts straight in DH, but the theme & element development wasn't hurt enough to be a big issue for me. From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 22:16:01 2008 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:16:01 -0000 Subject: Occlumency lessons WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180452 > > Annemehr: > > > > The way I see it, the phrase "open your mind even further to > > Voldemort WHILE in my presence" denotes the joining of two events > > in time: 1)opening Harry's mind and 2)being with Dumbledore. And > > joining them in the sentence explaining why DD didn't teach Harry > > implies they *could* be separate, and in fact *were* separate, in > > the alternative situation DD did in fact set up: Harry's occlumency > > lessons with Snape opened his mind further to Voldemort WHILE NOT > > in the presence of Dumbledore. > > Mike: > While I agree, your interpretation of the passage in OotP seems > logical, I'm not sure you have Dumbledore's reasons correct. > Let me explain. > > Many of us wondered if the "scar connection" was a two-way street. > Interpreting DD's words would tend to make one come away with that > conclusion. That would also put Snape in an awkward position if > Voldemort was sitting in on Harry's Occlumency lessons with Snape. Annemehr: I believe I covered Snape's vulnerability in my original post: my understanding of the phenomenon (i.e. that LV can sense something coupled with the side-effect of the lessons opening Harry's mind further) allows Snape to assure LV that what he is doing is *softening Harry up* for LV's mind-attacks. All the while pretending he's trying to teach Harry the opposite, on DD's orders, natch. A typical day in the life of a double-agent, eh? Mike: > We knew the connection was open throughout OotP, then Voldemort > closes it off in HBP, by Occlumency according to Dumbledore. But the > connection is re-opened in DH. Why? I don't know, no explanation was > given, unless it was part of the whole parasitic thing growing > stronger explanation. Annemehr: What we get in DH re soul bits in general is very problematic for me; I have never been able to make complete sense of what happens in the text. My assessment of the effect of Occlumency lessons depends pretty much completely on what we get in OoP. Mike: > > But, was the connection a two-way street? NO! Voldemort's eyes/mind > have always been the camera and Harry's mind has always been the > projection screen. That was the case throughout OotP and it was the > case throughout DH. Voldemort was never shown to have seen what's > going on with Harry, or where he is. If he could have seen through > Harry, he would have been on Harry first in the "Seven Potters", > would have seen that he was at 12 GP, was at the Ministry, where the > camping trip took them, seen him captured and in the Malfoy dungeon, > on and on. The connection was open during almost every one of these > events, and yet Voldemort didn't know where Harry was. > Annemehr: Ah, but YES, I am sure the connection in OoP was a two way street, to at least a certain extent. First of all, it's the only way LV would have known when Harry actually got the vision of Sirius being crucioed, so that Kreacher could be notified to get Sirius out of the way of any inquiries from Harry -- and the DEs notified to clear the Ministry of personnel. Beyond that, we have another example in ch. 36, when Harry and Bellatrix are in the MoM atrium, and Harry tells Bella that the prophecy is smashed: >>> "Well, you're going to have to kill me, because it's gone!" Harry roared -- and as he shouted it, pain seared across his forehead. His scar was on fire again, and he felt a surge of fury that was quite unconnected with his own rage. "And he knows!" said Harry with a mad laugh to match Bellatrix's own. "Your dear old mate Voldemort knows it's gone! He's not going to be happy with you, is he?" <<< And then, of course, LV actually appears in the atrium in response to this. Because Harry, in his rage, roared to Bella the one fact she would hate and fear to know, and his rage carried that fact to LV's mind. Given that, I accept DD's explanation that LV first became aware of this during the attack on Arthur Weasley (but *how* does he know? -- actually this bugs me). My best guess is that LV received *something* in his direction if Harry's emotions were strong enough. It's also why I accept the plain-English sense of DD's explanation for why he didn't give the Occlumency lessons. And this is one thing that seems quite clear to me. (A possible explanation for why LV seems to sense nothing in DH is that he never stopped using Occlumency against Harry and thus blocked himself from receiving anything from him. But, since Harry had a soul piece within himself, he was able to learn to overcome the "block" on his end whenever he accessed LV on purpose -- because LV couldn't, in effect, practice Occlumency on himself. *shrug* It makes as much sense as anything else I've come up with.) > Mike: > Try this one, Anne. :) Dumbledore said he saw the shadow of Voldemort > behind Harry's eyes after the Arthur-gets-bit episode. So when > Dumbledore says "open your mind even further to Voldemort" was he > referring to the soul bit or the newly embodied LV? > > I think it can be interpreted as opening/weakening Harry's mind for > the soul piece to gain more control. Somehow, these soul pieces have > some sense of self, they know where they come from and who their > enemies are. Witness the Diary. Dumbledore could have been afraid of > giving the soul piece more incentive to take over Harry's mind, if it > perceived DD as trying to block it from connecting to the father > ship. An incentive that it probably wouldn't have if Harry was being > taught by Snape, a perceived ally. Annemehr: But the soul piece Harry carried seems to have had precious little influence on the way Harry acted of its own accord -- it seemed to have less of an effect on his personality than wearing the locket did, for instance. So I find it hard to imagine that DD was that worried about it apart from its connection to LV. After all, he spent so much time with Harry and his little passenger in HBP. If the soul bit had such a sense of self, why did it not act up then, regardless of whether LV was using Occlumency? No, I'm afraid I don't find this idea convincing. Mike: > > What did I miss? I know I missed something, but can't for the life of > me figure out what it is? > Maybe it was how LV knew when Kreacher needed to distract Sirius and how he knew that the prophecy was smashed? ;-) Annemehr From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Jan 7 22:13:53 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:13:53 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ som... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180453 > > Sandy: > > > > Okay, I'm going to jump in on this too. I am going to agree with > Shelley's assessment of the Dumbledore statement in that it was the > most obvious one, made up of whole cloth and out of the blue, for > what purposes I am still trying to determine. There was absolutely > nothing in canon to point us in this direction. > Well, I disagree. I posted a very long post indicating where there were indicators that DD was gay in canon. If anyone is interested, I can post the exact message. She stated in her television show "Dumbledore is gay. He is gay" in response to a question about Charlie being gay (no, he was more interested in dragons, she said). She stated in her interview that she realized DD was gay while she was writing Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. She stated that she didn't reveal it in the books because it would have given away a crucial part of the plot that was still a mystery. Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Jan 7 22:52:46 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:52:46 -0000 Subject: Luna/Neville Re: was Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ som... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180454 > Sandy: > She had also changed the statement about Luna. In the interview Luna > was not married, in the live chat Luna was married to Whoever > Scamander. > > Potioncat: > In the interview I saw, she was asked if Luna and Neville got > together. She seemed surprised and said that was a good idea, or > something like that, but didn't indicate who they had married if > anyone. But I don't recall her saying that Luna hadn't married. > > I tried to find a link for the Dateline interview that I think you > may be referring to. I have a link to the actual video of it----I > think. But I couldn't find a transcript. > > I'd like to suggest that when possible, we post a link to the > interview being discussed, then paste that link into each reply so > that everyone can find the exact quotes. > > Potioncat, who wasn't any good at cutting and pasting in > Kindergarten, and is just catching on to it in cyberspace. > Here's what I found. I don't think that Ms. Rowling's statements were terribly contradictary. Perhaps I'm wrong? On her website it states: "Rumor: Luna and Neville will hook up in HP&THBP The Luna/Neville shippers are much less vehement and scary than the Harry/Hermione, Ron/Hermione tribes, so I hope I won't receive too much hate mail for quashing this rumour. I see Neville and Luna as very different kinds of people and while they share a certain isolation within Hogwarts, I don't think that's enough to foster true love - friendship, perhaps, although I think that Neville would always find Luna's wilder flights of fancy alarming." Then the Blue Peter special interview 'Harry Potter: A Blue Peter Special.' Blue Peter (CBBC), July 20 2007. QUESTION: During the course of the seven books you've written, have any of the characters developed in an unexpected way that has surprised even you, the creator of them? JKR: "Ummmm ... sometimes characters misbehave a little bit, and want to do their own thing. But I think I know them very very well, so they've never really taken me by surprise. Except -- I can say this because it hasn't happened but there is speculation at one point on the internet that Neville and Luna would end up together (audience giggles). And I said, "No, that won't happen." But you know what, while writing Seven, I started to feel a bit of a pull between Luna and Neville in a way. I started to see how that could work, but it hasn't happened. That was an interesting thing. The moment I'd said, "Of course, they would never fancy each other," I go... I don't know... You know, I kind of see that." Is this what you're basing your idea that she contradicted herself on? I believe her last sentence could be open to interpretation. I interpreted it to mean she could see how it might have happened. If you wanted Neville and Luna to get together, you could imagine that they fancied each other and dated before they each married Hannah Abbott and Rolf..... Then on July 30th, in the Bloomsbury interview, she states that Luna married Rolf Scamander later in life. Then in "A Year in the Life" documentary she states that the couple had Lorcan and Lysander. Susan McGee (who also had trouble cutting and pasting, and is still having trouble). From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Mon Jan 7 22:58:24 2008 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:58:24 -0000 Subject: Prime Ministers & secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180455 > dreamyclaire: > 2. > and this is the Prime Minister not the President of the United > States, Gordon Brown has 1 police man outside his door and 2 at > the end of the road he doesn't have a huge squad of bodyguards > that could hang around him day and night until the Minister of > Magic poped by again This is from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Downing_Street "Heavy security measures are present, if not always visible." "The gated entrance holds a box where several uniformed heavily armed police stand guard". This illustrates one on my problems with HP. I can read and enjoy all the books while putting a hold on my criticisms of the text. But I'm increasingly bothered by the context. JKR ignores so much of the real world while painting a detailed, if inconsistent, WW. Barry From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Jan 7 23:16:01 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:16:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control, was Less than 1000 posts/ som... References: Message-ID: <008b01c85183$4594bb80$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180456 > She stated in her television show "Dumbledore is gay. He is gay".... > She stated that she didn't reveal it in the books because it would > have given away a crucial part of the plot that was still a mystery. > > Susan Shelley: JKR must be delusional at times. I just don't see at all how revealing DD was gay could have possibly revealed any part of the plot. We might have been able to guess that the relationship had then been with Grindewald (fans still were, even long before Book 7 and certainly before that reveal), but still, how would that have given away anything? Anything important to the plot??? I still maintain that the Rita Skeeter's book "special reveal" was all about exposing Dumbledore's gayness and boyhood romantic fling with Grindewald, if JKR did indeed write the last book with a gay DD in mind. It was my guess that she would have tried to smear Harry Potter as DD's next fling, a remembrance to the young lover he once had. Maybe that question will get answered in an interview one of these days. Again, I still see a disparage between the story she wrote on page, and the one she's telling in the interviews. I really wish she has wrote what was in her head, instead of what we got that needed editing and more time paid to it. From va32h at comcast.net Tue Jan 8 00:20:08 2008 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:20:08 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180457 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > While I can see why you would have wanted to see it play out this way > (I'd have liked to have seen Draco make more of a visible > move "toward the Light" myself), I can definitely understand why it > played out exactly the way JKR wrote it in that scene. Why? Because > I think Draco has gotten the message, LOUD AND CLEAR, by this point, > that Voldemort can tell when someone is lying. va32h: I agree on both counts (Draco making a more visible turn to the light, but not in the Malfoy Manor scene). SO MUCH was made of saving Draco's soul in HBP. For what, exactly? That cold nod on Platform 9 3/4? While Draco was in no position to help Harry in Malfoy Manor, I don't understand why Draco was back to snotty-old-Draco in the RoR. Yes, yes, he wanted to capture Harry to get back in favor with LV. But by this time, Draco ought to have known that nothing would get his family back in LV's graces - the only way to be free of Voldemort was to help get rid of him. va32h From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net Tue Jan 8 01:52:46 2008 From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:52:46 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180458 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rlevatter" wrote: > Defining terms: > > Mudblood: a witch/wizard with two Muggle parents > Half-blood: a witch/wizard with one Muggle and one Magic parent > Pure-blood: a witch/wizard with two Magic parents Pippin Fowler: Welcome, RL! 'Mudblood' also equals 'Muggle-born'. I'm not sure JKR ever explicitly managed to define 'half-blood' in canon, though it seems she landed on a WW definition that matches standard 'breeding' English. A half-blood is a child who has only one pureblood parent. The 'half' is confusing to some: it does not refer to the *degree* of blood 'purity', it only considers two options for a parent: pureblood or not pureblood. Think of it as the focus being on which, if either, parent is pureblood. That leaves 3 choices: zero, one, or two; or Muggle-born, half-blood, or pureblood. Pippin Fowler From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 04:02:40 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:02:40 -0000 Subject: Occlumency lessons WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180459 >> Mike previously: >> What did I miss? > Carol responds: > But what you're missing, IMO, is that LV could--and did--exploit > the connection he sent Harry the false vision Mike: But I didn't really miss that, Carol. I mean, that doesn't change my guess that the connection was one-way. And I see that you agree with that position. > Carol again: > Had Harry actually used Occlumency, perhaps he could have blocked > the dreams and, more important, the false vision. Mike: My thoughts were that Occlumency could not possibly work in Harry's case. I understood Occlumency as blocking outside penetration of one's mind. Certainly that's how Snape is using it against Voldemort, and how Draco used it, albeit poorly, against Snape. Do we have any other examples of successful uses of Occlumency that work in an alternate fashion? I envision the soul connection between Voldy's 'home soul' and the soul-bit in Harry as outside of anyone's ability to control, except for the owner of the soul pieces - Voldemort. Since the soul-bit is already inside of Harry, Occlumency wouldn't work, as that is meant to block outside penetration not what your own mind perceives. See the difference? Harry wasn't trying to block Voldemort from penetrating his mind, Harry was suppose to be stopping his mind - through the soul piece - from penetrating Voldemorts. Not the same thing at all, IMO. YMMV. > Annemehr: > > I believe I covered Snape's vulnerability in my original post. Mike: Yeah, I saw that, Anne. I was just going for a different angle so I thought a brief recap was in order. :) > Annemehr: > > My assessment of the effect of Occlumency lessons depends > pretty much completely on what we get in OoP. > > > Ah, but YES, I am sure the connection in OoP was a two way street, > to at least a certain extent. Mike: Don't forget Draco using it in HBP. But let's discuss the OotP examples. > Annemehr: > First of all, it's the only way LV would have known when Harry > actually got the vision of Sirius being crucioed, so that Kreacher > could be notified to get Sirius out of the way of any inquiries > from Harry -- and the DEs notified to clear the Ministry of > personnel. Mike: I think it was Dumbledore that said Voldemort "sensed your presence", but it may have been Snape. In any case, it seems Voldemort was able to *sense* when Harry was penetrating his mind, when the incursion was strong enough. So Voldemort did whatever he did to project that false vision of Sirius and waited to *sense* the incursion from Harry. That became the GO signal for his plan. > Annemehr: > Beyond that, we have another example in ch. 36, when Harry and > Bellatrix are in the MoM atrium, and Harry tells Bella that the > prophecy is smashed: > > >>> <<< > > And then, of course, LV actually appears in the atrium in response > to this. Because Harry, in his rage, roared to Bella the one fact > she would hate and fear to know, and his rage carried that fact to > LV's mind. Mike: I can't say that you're wrong. All I can say is that I thought LV was already in the Atrium when Harry got the spikes in his scar pain. Just that Harry didn't know it because he was concentrating on Bella. > Annemehr: > It's also why I accept the plain-English sense of DD's explanation > for why he didn't give the Occlumency lessons. And this is one > thing that seems quite clear to me. Mike: There is also this section in OotP: [Snape]: "He has deduced that the process is likely to work in reverse; that is to say, he has realized that he might be able to access your thoughts and feelings in return --" "And he might try and make me do things?" asked Harry.... "He might," said Snape,... Mike again: Yet the only thing Voldemort was able to make Harry do, it seems, was to accept the false image of Sirius' torture. I looks to me that Dumbledore, and hence Snape, was wrong on this count. Which makes me think DD was wrong on process working in reverse. But I can't definitively rule it out, maybe Harry's feelings was all that Voldemort was able to receive. That would explain your MoM example, while still satisfying the DH condition where LV didn't know what Harry was up to. This, of course, still makes Dumbledore's reason for not teaching Occlumency to Harry wrongly decided. I'm still unclear if his admission of his mistake was just over asking Snape to teach it, or did that include an admission that he was wrong about not teaching it himself? > Annemehr: > (A possible explanation for why LV seems to sense nothing in DH is > that he never stopped using Occlumency against Harry and thus > blocked himself from receiving anything from him. But, since Harry > had a soul piece within himself, he was able to learn to overcome > the "block" on his end whenever he accessed LV on purpose -- > because LV couldn't, in effect, practice Occlumency on himself. > *shrug* It makes as much sense as anything else I've come up with.) Mike: This is similar to what I said above. You're right, it makes about as much sense as anything else I've heard. Anyone else got a better idea? > Annemehr: > > But the soul piece Harry carried seems to have had precious little > influence on the way Harry acted of its own accord -- it seemed to > have less of an effect on his personality than wearing the locket > did, for instance. Mike: Interjecting here to say that this LotR parallel annoyed me to no end. Back to Anne: > So I find it hard to imagine that DD was that worried about it > apart from its connection to LV. After all, he spent so much time > with Harry and his little passenger in HBP. If the soul bit had > such a sense of self, why did it not act up then, regardless of > whether LV was using Occlumency? No, I'm afraid I don't find > this idea convincing. Mike: Well, it wasn't one of my stronger theories. I thought I'd throw it out there, but your argument is much more convincing than mine. So scrap the "DD was worried about the soul piece taking over Harry" part of my theory. :D > Annemehr: > > Maybe it was how LV knew when Kreacher needed to distract Sirius > and how he knew that the prophecy was smashed? ;-) Mike: Kreacher I think I had an answer for. The smashed prophesy, eh, I think you've got a better explanation. ;) That might be the one. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 04:15:52 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:15:52 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180460 -va32h: > > I agree on both counts (Draco making a more visible turn to the light, but not in the Malfoy Manor scene). > > While Draco was in no position to help Harry in Malfoy Manor, I don't > understand why Draco was back to snotty-old-Draco in the RoR. Yes, yes, he wanted to capture Harry to get back in favor with LV. But by this time, Draco ought to have known that nothing would get his family back in LV's graces - the only way to be free of Voldemort was to help get rid of him. Carol responds: I don't have time for a detailed argument now or to hunt up old posts on the subject, but my reading of the RoR scene was that Draco was playing along with Crabbe, pretending to want to turn Harry over to Voldemort, but was actually trying to protect Harry (and even "that diadem thing," which could have been destroyed by Crabbe's and Goyle's wild spells). His lines to Crabbe about not Crucioing or killing Harry are too reminiscent of Snape's lines to the DEs near the end of HBP to be coincidence. More than once, he grabs Crabbe's arm to stop him and he casts no spells himself even before he loses his (mother's) wand. I don't think Draco cares at all about getting back into LV's good graces (contrast his behavior at Malfoy Manor with that of his father, who definitely wants his old authority back), and he has no reason to fear for the lives of his parents if he doesn't turn Harry over to LV: no one has assigned him to do so. It seems to me that it's all Crabbe's idea--he rejects Draco's authority over him before he casts the Fiendfyre. Carol, wondering whether Draco would have fought the DE instead of saying "I'm on your side!" if he still had a wand From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Jan 8 04:30:14 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 20:30:14 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Point of Gay Dumbledore; was Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0801072030t30552443md9ab7b268f1b14ec@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180461 Pippin: I dare say a major--if not the major--attraction of this group was speculating about what might happen next, and JKR has taken away something from us (and all readers) by continuing to tell tales beyond the conclusion of DH. Let us solve the many remaining mysteries and look into the future in our own way. Lynda: Oh, I still am! For instance, I have no doubt that some girl at Hogwarts will discover that she's pregnant before she's out of school--that type of thing happens to teens after all and why should the wizarding world be different. A favorite speculation of mine is Lily Potter runs to the door of her house to open it after someone knocks, to see a big blond man standing at the door with a small child, saying "I need to see Harry Potter! My kid's turned her hair blue and and I don't know what to do! And last week she blew her teacher up! I can't have a kid like her in regular school! Starting, of course, a whole new series of stories concerning the adventures of Harry's neice. Not of course, that I'm expecting anything like that to be written, but imagination is a wonderful thing--and I don't have a lot of time to read interviews or listen to podcasts, so until the Potterpedia comes out, and even beyond, the fertile fields of my mind are free to wander... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 05:51:06 2008 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 05:51:06 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180462 > > > Betsy Hp: > > That Slytherins are treated as the scapegoats and sin-eaters > > of the WW had been apparent to me the moment Dumbledore pulled > > that tacky powerplay at the end of PS/SS. That Draco was stronger > > than Harry ever gave him credit for was apparent to me the second > > time Draco went up against Harry. Or the moment Draco looked up > > at a teacher who'd just physically abused and humiliated him in > > front of the entire student body and still managed to spit out > > defiance through his pain. > > revaunchanistx: > At what point are the Slytherins ever a scapegoat or sin-eater, > at the end of PS/SS last minute points had to be rewarded, it > would have been more wrong to ignore what had happened and > not reward points to Gryffindor. It would have shown extreme > favoritism of Slytherin just to let them win. Draco always > tried to get Harry when his back was turned, Harry treated > Draco with the respect he deserved. Harry was the only one > who recognized Draco as a serious threat in HBP. Draco did > not spit out defiance to a teacher who humiliated him. He > told a bitter Death Eater that his father would hear of it, > not very brave of him. Also let's not forget that Professor > McGonnagall stopped him, a lowly Gryffindor, or the fact that > fake Moody (Barty Crouch Jr.) was probably not in Slytherin > (at least canon doesn't say he was) and Barty Crouch Jr. was > very bad; he could be called a "sin-eater" > Snape's Witch: Oh, of course HRH and Neville deserved to be awarded those points! Who on earth has ever argued against it? No one that I can recall. What I found disturbing about that scene in PS/SS was the Slytherin flags on display indicating they had definitely won the house cup and *then* DD awards the points, claps his hands, "We need a change of decoration" and the pennants change to Gryffindor. Sounds like deliberate humilation to me. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Tue Jan 8 05:56:38 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 05:56:38 -0000 Subject: The Point of Gay Dumbledore; was Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: <2795713f0801072030t30552443md9ab7b268f1b14ec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180463 > Pippin: > > I dare say a major--if not the major--attraction of this group was speculating about what might happen next, and JKR has taken away something from us (and all readers) by continuing to tell tales beyond the conclusion of DH. Let us solve the many remaining mysteries and look into the future in our own way. Tiffany: I love to speculate about post-DH happenings at Hogwarts. I've considered everything from Harry getting a teacher's position there or having a child who joins Slytherin to a female gettting pregnant while Hogwarts or another battle that threatens the WW again. I believe that even though the canonical novels themselves are closed that the Potterverse & WW will always be open to speculation & there the imagination can run wild. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 8 07:52:23 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:52:23 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180464 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Snape" wrote: > > > > > > > Betsy Hp: > > > That Slytherins are treated as the scapegoats and sin-eaters > > > of the WW had been apparent to me the moment Dumbledore pulled > > > that tacky powerplay at the end of PS/SS. That Draco was stronger > > > than Harry ever gave him credit for was apparent to me the second > > > time Draco went up against Harry. Or the moment Draco looked up > > > at a teacher who'd just physically abused and humiliated him in > > > front of the entire student body and still managed to spit out > > > defiance through his pain. > > > > revaunchanistx: > > At what point are the Slytherins ever a scapegoat or sin-eater, > > at the end of PS/SS last minute points had to be rewarded, it > > would have been more wrong to ignore what had happened and > > not reward points to Gryffindor. It would have shown extreme > > favoritism of Slytherin just to let them win. Draco always > > tried to get Harry when his back was turned, Harry treated > > Draco with the respect he deserved. Harry was the only one > > who recognized Draco as a serious threat in HBP. Draco did > > not spit out defiance to a teacher who humiliated him. He > > told a bitter Death Eater that his father would hear of it, > > not very brave of him. Also let's not forget that Professor > > McGonnagall stopped him, a lowly Gryffindor, or the fact that > > fake Moody (Barty Crouch Jr.) was probably not in Slytherin > > (at least canon doesn't say he was) and Barty Crouch Jr. was > > very bad; he could be called a "sin-eater" > > > > Snape's Witch: > Oh, of course HRH and Neville deserved to be awarded those points! > Who on earth has ever argued against it? No one that I can recall. > > What I found disturbing about that scene in PS/SS was the Slytherin > flags on display indicating they had definitely won the house cup and > *then* DD awards the points, claps his hands, "We need a change of > decoration" and the pennants change to Gryffindor. Sounds like > deliberate humilation to me. Geoff: I have to admit that that has always bothered me. To announce the points and then say "Ah but here's a few more I hadn't included..." If Dumbledore had awarded enough points to bring Gryffindor into, say, second place, I would have felt happier. He did seem to give out unusually large numbers of points considering that McGonagall only gave Harry and Ron five each for the troll incident which was supposed to be for extremely brave (but foolish) action. And then to award three sets of points to bring Gryffindor level with Slytherin before giving Neville another ten out of the blue seemed a little bit sneaky. I feel I must take a diametrically opposite view to revaunchanistx and say that it seemed to show extreme favouritism of Gryffindor just to let them win. Having taught eleven year olds, I can visualise how that would go down with them... and it did nothing to improve inter-house relationships in the following years. From bgrugin at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 07:55:08 2008 From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:55:08 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180465 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Snape" wrote: > What I found disturbing about that scene in PS/SS was the Slytherin > flags on display indicating they had definitely won the house cup and > *then* DD awards the points, claps his hands, "We need a change of > decoration" and the pennants change to Gryffindor. Sounds like > deliberate humilation to me. > MusicalBetsy here: I had always assumed that Slytherin's flags were being flown because they must have won the cup LAST year, so the school was just displaying last year's winner until the new winner was announced (which, if it had been Slytherin, then there would not need to be a change in flags). So I guess it depends on how you view that scene. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 07:56:18 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:56:18 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180466 --- , OctobersChild48 at ... wrote: > Sandy: > I have been unable to find a record or transcript of the > live chat, but it was then that she changed Ron to working > at the shop. > > Sandy bboyminn: I think there is an element of context here that you are ignoring. Regarding Ron and his job, in the right context BOTH can be true. I mean, you've never heard of anyone having a second part-time job? Ron probably went to work as an Auror just like Harry. In fact, I think JKR said virtually everyone who was instrumental in fighting Voldemort, continued to work as Aurors until the job was done and the last DE was rounded up. Neville is the Herbology teacher at Hogwarts, he wife runs the Leaky Cauldron, and JKR also said Neville likely worked as an Auror after the final battle. So which is it, teacher, Innkeeper, or Auror; well the answer is all three at varying degrees at varying times. The same with Ron, immediately after the battle, Ron would have wanted to continue working to round up the last of the Dark Wizards and to make sure they were all brought to justice. Once that job was done and the work load eased up, he might have gone to help George at night or on the weekends. Eventually, he might have quit being a Auror to assist George full time. I'm sure there was more money in George's shop than there was in being a civil servant. So, it is entirely possible that all versions are true. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 12:28:43 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:28:43 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180467 > lizzyben: > > Well, what I mean is that Lily is a witch, as much a part of the > wizarding world as any pureblood. And according to JKR all wizards, > even Muggleborns, have "wizarding blood" somewhere in their ancestry. a_svirn: When it is so far removed it doesn't count. Otherwise where would be the cherished muggle/wizard division? > lizzyben: > So Harry has magic from both parents. a_svirn: Yes. But he has wizarding *blood* only from his father's side. Blood in this case means something you inherit from your ancestors, something that makes you distinct from other families, races etc. In other words, you lineage, your descent. As in "blood-relationships" or consanguinity as opposed to affinity. And his descent on his mother's side is muggle. > lizzyben: James & Lily are as prominent > in the WW as Lucius & Narcissa, maybe more. a_svirn: Well, yes. But that has nothing to do with Lily's blood status. She was prominent because she was a powerful witch. (Unless you think she was prominent because she landed a pure-blood husband. Even so, her prominence wouldn't have anything to do with her blood status, and everything with her husband's.) > lizzyben: So Harry would've grown > up with a high status in the wizarding world, his natural home. In > contrast, Snape grew up as a misfit in the Muggle world. As did > Riddle. Snape and Riddle had the experience of belonging in neither > the wizarding world, nor the Muggle one. Whereas a child of two > wizarding parents would've grown up as a part of the wizarding world. a_svirn: Here again you are talking about nurture, rather than nature. Snape's being a misfit has nothing to do with his being half-blood. He was a difficult kid from a seemingly dysfunctional family. Harry was a misfit, because he was treated like one by his blood relatives. And Riddle was a misfit because Rowling ordained so. His soul had been damaged from the start. > lizzyben: > There is a big difference in terms of culture - a "half-blood" w/two > wizard parents would understand & be a part of the wizarding culture, > while a child w/a non-wizard parent would instead grow up as part of > the Muggle culture. a_svirn: Yes, of course. But as you yourself pointed out it is a difference "in terms of culture". Culture and blood status are most definitely not the same thing. > lizzyben: Another oddity, to me, is that while the text > seems to approve of Muggleborn/Wizard marriages, it seems to look > down on Muggle/Wizard marriages. After all, the only two we hear > about are totally dysfunctional & poisonous. So, it's not very > approving of relationships between people of different cultures. a_svirn: Hear, hear! Rowling doesn't seem to like muggles, does she? > lizzyben: It's > not even very approving of marriages outside of one's own House. > After all, the Trio all marry other Gryffindors. So we have this very > insular viewpoint that is suspicious of relationships outside one's > own narrow circle or own's own culture - yet it's *tolerant* because > the heros marry Muggle-borns who are part of that narrow > circle/culture. a_svirn: Yes, I agree. > > a_svirn: > > I think you are confusing nature and culture, so to speak. Harry > > could've been a part of wizading world if he had been raised as a > > wizard, but he wasn't because he hadn't. It has nothing to do with > > blood, and everything to do with his upbringing. > > > > a_svirn > > > > lizzyben: > > But his upbringing would have everything to do w/his blood. The child > of two wizards w/the magic wizarding gene will grow up in the WW. > Like Harry would have. The child of a Muggle & wizard will instead > grow up in the "other" Muggle world, like Snape did. a_svirn: Not really. Snape had been indoctrinated in the wizarding culture as a child. In fact, he was indoctrinated a little too well into it ? hence his death eating. > lizzyben: Blood determines > which culture you grow up as a part of - and a child of two wizards > (whether muggleborn or not) will grow up as a part of the wizarding > world. One of Us. Whereas a child w/a Muggle parent will instead > likely grow up in the Muggle culture. One of Them. And the text > seems to say that it's great if a "half-blood" child has a muggleborn > wizard parent. But it's really, really bad if a "half-blood" > child has a Muggle parent. a_svirn: Yes, well. There is that. But we were talking about blood-status, the lineage. If some aristocrat marries a pauper, his children would have all the advantages of aristocratic upbringing, but there would be a snob or two to remind them about their less than spectacular decent on the mother's side. Same here. A wizard with one or even two muggleborn parents would be perhaps more at home in the WW than a wizard with one muggle parent, but in terms of lineage their situation would be the same. In fact a half-muggle can be of a higher blood satatus than someone with four muggle grand-parents. > lizzyben: > It goes back to the odd distinction the books make between > intolerance of Muggleborns (bad), & intolerance towards Muggles (OK). > Muggleborns are part of wizarding culture, while Muggles are not. So > Muggleborns & the children of muggleborn wizards ARE part of > wizarding culture. They've got the same powers, same education, same > everything. By promoting tolerance of Muggleborn wizards, who are > part of the WW, & by defining half-blood to include the children of > Muggleborn wizards, the text hides the negative, intolerant messages > about Muggle culture. It frames the issue in such a way > that "tolerance" only means accepting people from one's own culture, > while maintaining an attitude of suspicion, seperation & superiority > toward another culture. a_svirn: Yes, of course. But how can it be otherwise? The wizarding culture is defined by separation and suspicion. Has been ever since the Statue of Secrecy. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 12:37:04 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:37:04 -0000 Subject: HouseElves/Pettigrew/Shunpike/Bertha/Slytherin/Rewrites/Economic/Carol, Carol In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180468 > > a_svirn: > > I don't see what difference it would have made. Torturing people > > isn't gallant whichever way you slice it. Must have been some > > peculiar Gryffindor logic. > > Pippin: > As in the scene with Dudley at the beginning of OOP, Harry's initial > intention was gallant -- to punish the tormentor of an innocent > person. But then it felt so good to have an outlet for all the rage and > frustration he'd been feeling. a_svirn: I am sure it did. But McGonagall didn't say, "Potter, I am sure, you initial intention was gallant", did she? > > a_svirn: When I finished DH I thought my English is horribly > > deficient, because I simply couldn't see how "neither can live while > > the other survives" can be translated into "one cannot be killed, > > while the other lives". I still don't see it. > > Pippin: > The explanation's in "The Other Minister" - "Yes, alive," said Fudge. "That > is--I don't know--is a man alive if he can't be killed? I don't really understand > it and Dumbledore won't explain properly -- but anyway he's certainly got a > body and is walking and talking and killing, so I suppose, for the purposes of our > discussion, yes, he's alive." > > But not for the purposes of the prophecy, evidently. a_svirn: That would mean that Harry "hadn't been alive for the purposes of the Prophesy" as well. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 13:10:23 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:10:23 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180469 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Lizzyben: > . Another oddity, to me, is that while the text > > seems to approve of Muggleborn/Wizard marriages, it seems to look > > down on Muggle/Wizard marriages. After all, the only two we hear > > about are totally dysfunctional & poisonous. > > Pippin: > Nope. Seamus Finnegan's dad is a Muggle, and as far as we know the > Finnegan family is just fine. They also don't seem to be cut off from > the WW. We don't hear much about Seamus's dad, but there's no > indication that he was unhappy once he got over the shock of learning > he'd married a witch. > > The text shows that relationships between people who come from > different cultures and can't assimilate are difficult -- who would argue > with that? > a_svirn: Difficult, yes, it rings true. But do they have to be abusive? The text certainly shows the muggle/wizard relationships as such. Intimate relationship ? Merope/Tom Riddle definitely abusive, the Finnegans ? abuse of trust. We don't know what the problem with Snape's parents was, but their marriage had been on the rocks throughout his childhood, that much is clear. The relationships between wizading children and their mugle parents are abusive as well: practically all of them abuse their parent's trust (with the Hogwarts stuff's connivance), and Hermione abused her power, by robbing her parents from their identities. And every time we see muggle/wizard interaction we see wizards using and abusing their power. Magic is might. a_svirn. From va32h at comcast.net Tue Jan 8 13:33:29 2008 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:33:29 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180470 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > > I think there is an element of context here that you are > ignoring. Regarding Ron and his job, in the right context > BOTH can be true. I mean, you've never heard of anyone having > a second part-time job? Ron probably went to work as an Auror > just like Harry. In fact, I think JKR said virtually everyone > who was instrumental in fighting Voldemort, continued to > work as Aurors until the job was done and the last DE was > rounded up. > > Neville is the Herbology teacher at Hogwarts, he wife runs > the Leaky Cauldron, and JKR also said Neville likely worked > as an Auror after the final battle. So which is it, teacher, > Innkeeper, or Auror; well the answer is all three at > varying degrees at varying times. > > The same with Ron, immediately after the battle, Ron would > have wanted to continue working to round up the last of > the Dark Wizards and to make sure they were all brought to > justice. Once that job was done and the work load eased up, > he might have gone to help George at night or on the > weekends. Eventually, he might have quit being a Auror to > assist George full time. I'm sure there was more money in > George's shop than there was in being a civil servant. > > So, it is entirely possible that all versions are true. > > Just a thought. va32h: Here's my issue with that, Steve. I am sick and tired of having to do mental gymnastics to make Rowling's inconsistencies work. That is not supposed to be my job as a the reader - to spend MY time coming up with some convoluted scenario in which Ron is a part-time Auror (and while there are plenty of folks IRL who have two jobs, have we ever seen a wizard with two jobs? No.) The AUTHOR was the one who was supposed to invest her time and energy figuring this stuff out - how to get Sirius' letter into 12GP or why no one at Hogwarts knew Snape and Lily were friends or how Ron would have known about the Hand of Glory or any of the post-DH nonsense she's thrown about. Yes, we CAN make sense of it, but we should not *have* to. The book (and Rowling's statements) should make sense all by themselves! What ticks me off the most about JKR is the sheer LAZINESS of it. Which is encapsulated in Hermione's announcement that she "Accio'd books on Horcruxes" and poof, there they were. va32h From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 13:49:24 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:49:24 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180471 > >>Mike: > > By the time we got to DH, I wasn't that scared of Voldemort, for > Harry. > > Yes, Slytherin had naturally replaced the mostly absent Voldemort > as the main antagonist for Harry. How could they not? Then all of a > sudden, in DH, Slytherin doesn't matter any more. We're back to > worrying about Voldemort and his Horcruxes. It doesn't flow, not > after we'd been treated to so much Snape, Draco and even Narcissa > and Bellatrix. Sure, they're all tied to LV, but their characters > were fleshed out so much more, in the here and now, than his was. > Betsy Hp: I think it was Sydney who described Voldemort as more a force of nature or a monster than an actual antagonist for Harry. He's not a character we were supposed to look at for any kind of depth or nuance (our peep into his childhood made that quite clear). So I assumed that the deep stuff would come from Harry's interaction with the actual antagonists of his story: Slytherin. Hmm, I'm not sure I can make this make sense (it's very clear in my head, I assure you *g*) but I saw Voldemort as this great task that the solving of would cause Harry to grow. So Voldemort didn't need to be all that interesting, but the way to defeat him should have been. That's where I was expecting Harry to have to learn some life lessons, etc. Instead, the defeat of Voldemort *was* the story. Which, you know, yawn. (Especially since JKR just does not write a good battle scene.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > I honestly think that this sidelining of all things Slytherin was > > a massive story-telling mistake on JKR's part. She'd put too much > > into making them the big antagonist for Harry to suddenly say they > > didn't matter. Which I think is made apparent by all these > > attempts to ret-con them back into a place of importance. > >>Mike: > I agree with you Betsy, again. I expected so much more out of or > directed towards Snape and Draco. The reduction of Snape to a > footnote and what felt like the dropping of Draco's story > altogether was my major disappointment in DH. > > I also had no delusions that Slytherin was anything other than the > bad guy house, so I wasn't looking for any redemption. (I don't > mean anyone here was delusional, heh, I mean I was certain in my > mind what JKR was doing with Slytherin.) But that didn't mean I > expected, as Betsy put it, "all things Slytherin" to fall off the > table in favor of following Harry's story. Betsy Hp: I'm thrilled with the amount of agreement we have going on, Mike! Also, I'm curious: what did you want to see with Slytherin? Obviously, I was hoping for a redemptive arc, but what were you looking for? A bigger show down? (Honestly, I think I'd have preferred that to the whimper Slytherin ended with.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > Heh. In some ways, I think the subject line best reflects my > > thoughts as I read DH: "Slytherin! Come back!" > >>Mike: > My sentiments would be more along the lines of: Slytherin, go > away!, as in, I never liked you guys and I still don't. > But she shouldn't have built up their story for six books if she > was going to just kick them off the Hogwarts Express before it > pulled into Hogsmeade Station. Betsy Hp: Hear, hear! :D From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Jan 8 14:18:10 2008 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:18:10 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180472 > "Steve" > So, what if we speculatively rewrite the books, in fact, why > don't we all do it right now? > > I'm proposing that we each re-write some small aspect or > scene in the books the way we think it should have gone, or > at least could have gone ... > > Anyone feel like playing? > > Steve/bboyminn > aussie: JKR had travelled a bit, especially since her books sold and she moved around to promote Harry in so many different countries. So I would have tried to involve a few other countries in canon. Like when Sirius replied to Harry's letter at the start of GOF, a tropical bird delivered it, not an owl. - So where was Sirius then and could the wizarding community been introduced. (Personally, I was hoping it was an Australian parrot, but it could have been African or even South American) Charlie Weasley was going to recruit some of the wizards from the Romanian dragon sanctuary. Those wizards came from many countries. Japan and USA would have liked to have seen their countrymen help Harry. Flying Carpets were discussed in GOF. So middle eastern wizarding families could have been at Hogwarts. Bill worked in Egypt. Surely he knew sympathetic wizarding folk from there. Europeans connected to Beaubatons and Drumstrang could have been better represented than just by Fleur in the last book. aussie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 17:19:46 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:19:46 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180473 bboyminn wrote: > > In fact, I think JKR said virtually everyone who was instrumental in fighting Voldemort, continued to work as Aurors until the job was done and the last DE was rounded up. Carol responds: Yes, IIRC, she did say something like that in a recent Pottercast segment (the transcript is on Leaky). Which raises the question of what happened to the need for six NEWTs, including Potions, and three subsequent years of training. Maybe they were deputized as temporary junior Aurors, with the duty of searching out and helping to bring in known DEs. But to admit them to the department untrained, and then to have Harry become head of the department at twenty-seven all because he used an Expelliarmus on Voldemort and was lucky enough not to die from Voldemort's Expelliarmi because of a soul bit and a mix-up with the Elder Wand? Ergh. I'd rather believe that Harry and Ron returned to Hogwarts with Hermione and *earned* their positions as Aurors with the proper training. If Ron became an Auror at all, as both he and Harry expressed the desire to do in the books. Sigh. I wish JKR had gone to South America or Fiji (winks at Goddlefrood) or anywhere to escape the Rita Skeeters and work on that encyclopedia without giving us previews of content that may well change by the time she actually writes it. Actually, I'd rather that she examined the inconsisties, improbabilities, and lacunae that readers have pointed out in the books, recognized them as real and not imagined defects, and revised the books to repair as many as possible, with the help of an editor familiar with the books and the criticisms who would keep her from making still more blunders. Carol, wondering what the books would have been like if JKR had been allowed to take her time and the editors had been less leery of changing a single word from her pen or keyboard or pointing out inconsistencies and requiring her to correct them From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 17:25:40 2008 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:25:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <887933.2648.qm@web52711.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180474 Carol wrote: <<>> Carol, wondering what the books would have been like if JKR had been allowed to take her time and the editors had been less leery of changing a single word from her pen or keyboard or pointing out inconsistencies and requiring her to correct them ***Katie: Forgive me the one-liner, as I iron my hands and beat my head against my keyboard...BUT...the short answer is - They would have been much better books, especially DH. Much, much better. Katie . [url=http://lilypie.com][img]http://bd.lilypie.com/dwnhm5/.png[/img][/url] --------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 18:11:21 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:11:21 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180475 lizzyben wrote: > Another oddity, to me, is that while the text seems to approve of Muggleborn/Wizard marriages, it seems to look down on Muggle/Wizard marriages. After all, the only two we hear about are totally dysfunctional & poisonous. So, it's not very approving of relationships between people of different cultures. > a_svirn replied: > Hear, hear! Rowling doesn't seem to like muggles, does she? Carol responds: I'm snipping the discussion on blood. For the record, I agree with a-svirn's position (see upthread). Regarding Wizard/Muggle marriages, as someone else pointed out, there's no indication that Seamus's parents have an unhappy marriage, though his mother appears to be the dominant parent, appearing without her husband at the QWC and almost preventing Seamus from returning to Hogwarts in OoP. It's surprising to me that such marriages occur at all, given the pervasive prejudice against Muggles and the Statute of Secrecy, which would prevent the wizard or witch from revealing his or her secret before marriage. Granted, mostly Muggle towns like Ottery St. Catchpole would provide a chance for Magicals and Muggles to meet, and Muggle-borns would know Muggle families from their childhood, but the difficulties inherent in such a marriage would be almost insurmountable. (George supposedly marries Angelina rather than the pretty Muggle girl who admired his card tricks even though Arthur would no doubt have preferred a Muggle daughter-in-law.) As for Eileen Prince (almost certainly a Slytherin and probably a pure-blood given Severus's self-imposed nickname of *the* Half-Blood Prince) marrying a Muggle, it's so improbable that it can only have been done as a plot device to give Severus that nickname and a dysfunctional family background. As for Tom Riddle Sr.'s marriage to Merope Gaunt, it could only be managed thtough the use of love potions. I almost forgot to address the point about JKR's dislike of Muggles. She's portraying the Wizarding world mostly from Harry's pov, and he certainly has no reason to like the Muggles he's encountered. But I thought that she presented Frank Bryce sympathetically, and Hermione's parents appear to be good, understanding people (a bit more lenient than I would be with a teenage daughter, but that's fiction for you). The Dursleys are "the worst sort of Muggles," according to McGonagall (who obviously hasn't watched the British equivalent of "America's Most Wanted"), not typical shopkeepers and bankers and teachers. (I do think she's critical of middle-class materialism and of politicians in general, but that's another topic altogether.) Muggles in general "don't see nuffink, do they?" not because they're stupid ("Ingenious, these Muggles, aren't they?") but because of Muggle-repelling charms that prevent them from noticing magical places and other expedients that JKR has invented to make the existence of a secret, magical population in our midst believable to her Muggle readers. Those Muggles who do know about the WW keep it a secret for fear of being thought mad, which is a perfectly reasonable assumption in the post-Age of Reason world, the majority of which (at least in developed countries) has long since dismissed the existence of magic as unscientific. None of us, after all, can take a wand we've purchased online (no, I don't own one), point it at an object and say "Wingardium Leviosa, and cause the object to fly. And if we were to brew, say, rat spleens and powdered moonstone and crushed beetles and mandrake root in a cauldron, all we would get is a foul-smelling mess. I think, IOW, that the Muggle attitude toward magic (it doesn't exist) is spot on. As for the Wizarding attitude toward Muggles, who tried to burn them or drown them or hang them back in the days when they did believe in magic because they associated magic with the devil, and who are clearly "inferior" because they lack powers that Wizards take for granted, I think that the attitude is understandable if deplorable. (Contact with Muggle relatives like the Dursleys or Tobias Snape only magnifies the problem. I don't think it's the root cause.) The cure, IMO, is a good Muggle Studies class, but evidently, Charity Burbage was preaching to the choir. I doubt that students like Draco, who were most in need of understanding Muggles as people, would have deigned to take the class. If nothing else, British WW kids should learn that witch-burning/hanging has not been practiced in Britain (and English-speaking countries in general) for some three hundred years and that Muggles have produced great works of art, architecture, literature, and music, as well as brilliant and sometimes dangerous inventions, without recourse to magic. We've done pretty well for ourselves, even without the latest technological gadgets. Carol, imagining that Wizard/Muggle marriages were more common before the Statute of Secrecy and/or that most Muggle-borns have a Squib ancestor who passed as a Muggle, accounting for Wizarding genes in the Muggle population From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 18:22:04 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:22:04 -0000 Subject: That "Love" thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180476 > >> Betsy Hp: > > To my mind, this is the most messed up definition of love, and > > the most messed up way to study love I've ever heard of. Create > > a false illusion of obsession and lust and *that's* supposed to > > teach you about love? THAT'S what's in the "love room"?!? > >>a_svirn: > Yeah, unspeakable, isn't it? Betsy Hp: Hah! Okay, you win. :D > >>a_svirn: > Then again, perhaps we are meant to think of the Department of > Mysteries as of one big red herring of the series? > Betsy Hp: At this point I lean more towards lost plot point. JKR is good at the set up, not so good at the follow through, IMO. And the DoM is just one example. > >>Pippin: > Hee! And that's just what I love about the WW. They have this > beautiful philosophy, and then it gets all messed up in the > execution. Betsy Hp: I didn't see any examples of a beautiful philosophy, though. I don't think I see any sort of philosophy in the WW. It's all tooth and claw and survival, which granted, *is* a philosophy but I'd argue default rather than forethought (or afterthought for that matter). > >>Pippin: > And that's why it doesn't make a difference to Harry whether Al > goes into Slytherin. > Salazar's house has a reputation as the home of bad wizards, and > Gryffindor has a reputation as the home of good ones. But > reputations don't make choices, people do. > Betsy Hp: And Harry reassures Al that if he'd like to choose Gryffindor (which Al quite obviously would) than his choice will make a difference. I'm not sure what this has to do with the orgy room at the DoM... > >>Pippin: > But the thing that I hear JKR saying about love, and maybe you just > disagree with this, is that from the inside there's no difference. > The person who's in love can't tell whether a) the thing he loves > really has the qualities he's in love with b)those qualities are > worth loving or c)something is messing with his brain chemistry and > it's going to wear off. > Betsy Hp: I just don't see how observing someone under the influence of a powerful mind-altering drug will teach anyone anything about love. To equate the two demonstrates, to my mind, a profound misunderstanding about what love is. And I do disagree with the idea that love (real actual love, not lust or infactuation) is seperate from clear-sightedness. I'd actually argue that to see someone clearly requires that you love them. But then, I'm not equating love with sex or obsession. > >>Pippin: > The love that Harry feels for his family as he looks into the > Mirror of Erised is real, who could doubt it? Yet the mirror > contains neither knowledge nor truth. Betsy Hp: ::raises hand:: I doubt it. How could Harry love these people he doesn't know? He loves the *idea* of them (and who could blame him) but he doesn't know them to really love them. And since they aren't real, they can't really love him. That's the tragedy and the trap of that mirror: it's all illusion and false promises. As you say, neither knowledge nor truth. > >>Besty Hp: > > It explains why Snape was made pathetic and weak by his "love" > > for Lily. > >>Pippin: > Huh? To me this speaks of a basic misunderstanding of the plot. :) > Snape was made strong by his love for Lily, strong enough to defy > Voldemort. Betsy Hp: Well, no. It was a madly in love Snape who both joined the Death Eaters and served Voldemort. So yeah, no strength there. In fact, I'd say it was Snape's longing for love and his inability to properly define it that made him such easy pickings for Voldemort. (A fool wearing his heart on his sleeve, perhaps?) And part of his inability to recognize love came from his not recognizing how Lily was treating him. Lily never loved Snape: she never allowed herself to see him. > >>Pippin: > > I wish Dumbledore, that cold-hearted bastard, had told him that > Lily wouldn't have wanted him to mourn her forever. > Betsy Hp: Why would Dumbledore do that? After all, it was Snape's guilt that made him malleable. Dumbledore certainly couldn't rely on any sort of inner philosophy or personal code of conduct on Snape's part (which, I'm sure Dumbledore appreciated as a thinking Snape would have questioned him far too much, IMO). Dumbledore *needed* Snape to mourn forever. And to be perfectly honest, I doubt Lily would have cared. (Probably she'd have taken it as her due.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > It explains why we never see the Weasleys interact as a loving > > family would, supporting and building each other up rather than > > constantly sniping and pulling each other down. > Pippin: > When does a Weasley need help from his family and not get it? Betsy Hp: When Ron needed help and support as keeper neither the twins nor Ginny stepped forward. The twins, rather grudgingly, laid off the teasing, but Ginny did not. And none of them offered to run drills with him at all. Quite honestly it was inexplicatly shabby behavior on their part, both as siblings and as fellow team-members. When Percy was being laid out as the MoM's scape-goat over the Crouch debacle, we hear nothing of Arthur or anyone coming to his aid. And of course, he was never supported in his job in the first place. (The twins actively try and undermine him.) > >>Pippin: > They tear each other down when there's something that needs tearing, > and that's why they're not smug, self-righteous gits like the > Dursleys (although Percy came close.) Betsy Hp: Ironic considering Percy was the Weasley most torn down. And then there's Ginny. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Love is a weakness and a danger, apparently. Of course her good > > guy avoids it if he can. > >>Pippin: > By the end of the book, the good guy is Harry, who doesn't avoid > love, who is a better man than Dumbledore because he can love, > because he's not afraid to love although he knows that love can > be misleading. Betsy Hp: Harry is certainly more loving than Dumbledore. (I've seen rocks more loving than Dumbledore. *g*) But he's pretty careful to love only those who first love (I'd almost go so far as to say worship) him. Harry never took a risk with his heart. Which is probably why the WW stays so comfortably in its status-quo. > >>Betsy Hp > > PS: I have to mention this gem... > > "JKR: No! God, it wasn't Pansy Parkinson! I loath that girl. (JN > > and SU laugh) I don't love Draco but I really dislike her. She's > > every girl who ever teased me at school, she's the anti-Hermione. > > I loathe her. Yes, sorry, sidetracked there by my latent > > bitterness " > > Hee! No wonder I liked Pansy. :D > >>Pippin: > Betsy, are you saying you teased people like JKR when you were in > school? :D Betsy Hp: I'm saying anyone anti-Hermione can come sit by me. ;) Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 18:26:46 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:26:46 -0000 Subject: HouseElves/Pettigrew/Shunpike/Bertha/Slytherin/Rewrites/Economic/Carol, Carol In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180477 a_svirn: > When I finished DH I thought my English is horribly deficient, because I simply couldn't see how "neither can live while the other survives" can be translated into "one cannot be killed, while the other lives". I still don't see it. > > > > Pippin: > > The explanation's in "The Other Minister" - "Yes, alive," said Fudge. "That is--I don't know--is a man alive if he can't be killed? I don't really understand it and Dumbledore won't explain properly -- but anyway he's certainly got a body and is walking and talking and killing, so I suppose, for the purposes of our discussion, yes, he's alive." > > > > But not for the purposes of the prophecy, evidently. > > a_svirn: > That would mean that Harry "hadn't been alive for the purposes of the Prophesy" as well. > Carol responds: Besides, Fudge isn't explaining the Prophecy, which he hasn't heard. He's explaining how LV could be "alive" when he can't be killed. That has nothing to do with "neither can live while the other survives" being interprete as "one of us has to kill the other." Now, I happen to agree that LV isn't really "alive" in any normal sense; he ought to have died from the first rebounded AK and would have done so had it not been for the various Horcruxes and he has only a mangled fragment of a soul with which to possess a body not his own or inhabit a magically created/restored body. Harry, I suppose, can't "live" in the sense of not having a normal life while LV survives. But that has nothing to do with Harry's interpretation of the phrase as meaning "one of us has to kill the other" and DD's cool agreement with that statement. (He knows that LV has to "kill" Harry to destroy the soul bit, but he's concealing that bit of information from Harry.) "Neither can die while the other survives" would make more sense, but those words couldn't be interpreted to mean "One of us has to kill the other," either. Harry comes away from the discussion of the Prophecy thinking that he either has to commit murder or be murdered, and he bases that deduction on "Neither can live while the other survives." Odd, given that they're both surviving at the time, and no mention of killing occurs in those words. It has nothing to do with your understanding of English (which happens to be excellent), a-svirn. It has to do with JKR's (and therefore Harry's) apparently thinking that the words mean something that they can't be interpreted to mean. Carol, realizing that a prophecy has to be ambiguous but not to the point of making words mean something that they can't possibly mean From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 18:41:40 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:41:40 -0000 Subject: Pansy Parkinson WAS :Re: That "Love" thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180478 >>Betsy Hp > > PS: I have to mention this gem... > > "JKR: No! God, it wasn't Pansy Parkinson! I loath that girl. (JN > > and SU laugh) I don't love Draco but I really dislike her. She's > > every girl who ever teased me at school, she's the anti-Hermione. > > I loathe her. Yes, sorry, sidetracked there by my latent > > bitterness " > > Hee! No wonder I liked Pansy. :D > >>Pippin: > Betsy, are you saying you teased people like JKR when you were in > school? :D Betsy Hp: I'm saying anyone anti-Hermione can come sit by me. ;) Alla: Hmmmm, speaking about Pansy Parkinson. I too was surprised by this remark from JKR, but for a different reason than Betsy was obviously. I never have any problems with writer taking some qualities of RL people that he or she knows and portraying them in their bad guys or good guys for that matter, so that does not bother me. I mean, where else writer is supposed to observe people but in real life IMO. Half of the characters in War and peace were portrayed from real life people. I mean obviously they were not exact copies and Tolstoy could add the fictional motivations and portray several people in one, etc, but definitely many of them had real life prototypes and contemporary readers even recognized some of them from what I read. As I said, I think it is normal, so it did not bother me in the slightest that JKR put some qualities of that teacher in Snape, that she said that Pansy is every girl that teased her, etc. I mean, if she imagined her story just to punish her RL offenders, that would be a bit bizarre to me, but if she had in mind the story and just "painted her bad guys from nature" so to speak, that is perfectly usual and normal for me. Hmmm, so what I am trying to say here? Oh yes, Pansy. Sure I dislike her and I take Hermione over her at all time. I dislike her as supporter of DE and Voldemort, etc. But I would think that if Pansy invokes such strong feelings in JKR, I would expect that she would portray her in stronger negative tones. I mean, sure she commits a horrible deed in DH, but I would expect her to be shown as worse throughout the books. Like as I said before I want to strangle Malfoy and Snape pretty much every time they opened their mouths for six books, with Pansy it was like ? oh whatever, another little DE in passing. I do not know, maybe I wanted to hear mudblood from her more often or something like that. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 18:43:48 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:43:48 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180479 > >>Betsy Hp: > > The reason this argument leaves me completely cold is that > > I've long felt more affinity for Slytherin than Gryffindor. > > No one had to *tell* me Harry was prejudiced. I picked that > > up the moment he refused to shake Draco's hand. Actually, > > from the moment Hagrid whispered an obvious lie into Harry's > > ear. > >>revaunchanistx: > What? Did you miss Harry and Draco's meeting in Madam Malkin's > where Draco oozed prejudice and privilege out of every pore, > saying half-bloods and mud bloods shouldn't be allowed in and > my father is trying to get me on the house team and insulted > Hagrid, Harry's first true friend. > Betsy Hp: Oh, that's the scene where I first fell in *love* with Draco. Tiny little thing doing his best to make a new friend and saying *all* the wrong things. Hilarious *and* poignant. (And I must point out, Draco said his father thought he *should* be on the quidditch team. Not that he'd get him on there. Minor point, but a sore-ish one. *g*) > >>Betsy Hp: > > That Slytherins are treated as the scapegoats and sin-eaters > > of the WW had been apparent to me the moment Dumbledore pulled > > that tacky powerplay at the end of PS/SS. > > > >>revaunchanistx: > At what point are the Slytherins ever a scapegoat or sin-eater, > at the end of PS/SS last minute points had to be rewarded, it > would have been more wrong to ignore what had happened and > not reward points to Gryffindor. > > >>Snape's Witch: > > What I found disturbing about that scene in PS/SS was the Slytherin > flags on display indicating they had definitely won the house cup > and *then* DD awards the points, claps his hands, "We need a change > of decoration" and the pennants change to Gryffindor. Sounds like > deliberate humilation to me. > >>Geoff: > I have to admit that that has always bothered me. To announce the > points and then say "Ah but here's a few more I hadn't included..." > > I feel I must take a diametrically opposite view to revaunchanistx > and say that it seemed to show extreme favouritism of Gryffindor > just to let them win. Having taught eleven year olds, I can > visualise how that would go down with them... and it did nothing to > improve inter-house relationships in the following years. Betsy Hp: Yes, that's exactly how I saw it as well. > >>revaunchanistx: > > If you sympathized with Slytherins anyway and saw them > as victims what sort of turn-around were you expecting? > Betsy Hp: I expected Harry to have to deal with Slytherin as a group of people rather than an overarching philosophy. I won't say that the codified prejudice of Slytherin was correct; on the contrary, it was something that obviously needed fixing. But I also thought constantly attacking Slytherin, labeling them as the source of all that was bad in the WW would leave the problem unresolved and buried. Which, it did, IMO. > >>revaunchanistx: > > The only way the status quo would change on a massive scale like you > want it to is through a regime like Voldemort wanted to > instill, where he would have employed tactics that worked > in Cambodia, Stalin's Russia, and Red China and yes even > Nazi Germany. > Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180480 > >>revaunchanistx: > What? Did you miss Harry and Draco's meeting in Madam Malkin's > where Draco oozed prejudice and privilege out of every pore, > saying half-bloods and mud bloods shouldn't be allowed in and > my father is trying to get me on the house team and insulted > Hagrid, Harry's first true friend. > Betsy Hp: Oh, that's the scene where I first fell in *love* with Draco. Tiny little thing doing his best to make a new friend and saying *all* the wrong things. Hilarious *and* poignant. (And I must point out, Draco said his father thought he *should* be on the quidditch team. Not that he'd get him on there. Minor point, but a sore-ish one. *g*) Alla: Well, the initial argument was that you spotted right away that Harry was prejudiced to Draco, no? And since I agree with revaunchanistx completely, that is what I am wondering about. You agree that that tiny little thing in your opinion ( or tiny prejudiced pureblooded bastard in mine) was saying all the wrong things, yes? I say he was saying all prejudicial things to the core (spotting prejudice and privilege - LOVE and will have to adopt this expression, hehe). So, where do you get that Harry was prejudiced towards Draco? I mean if you say he disliked Draco after his speeches Harry's parents, Harry's first true friend and Harry's second true friend, I will surely agree with you. Harry disliked Draco very much after he heard what Draco had to say on the subject. What I am wondering is where you see prejudice in Harry's dislike of Draco? I see prejudice in calling Harry's dislike prejudice. Oh, and of course I see nothing wrong in being prejudiced towards the fictional character, God knows I was told that I am prejudiced against Slytherins myself many times, LOL and I see nothing wrong with it. I mean I happened to think that they deserved and especially Draco deserved all I thought about them and more, but even if I was prejudiced against fictional character so what. But if you are saying that you spotted right away that Harry was prejudiced against Draco, that argument I am not buying. I think Draco earned every bit of dislike from Harry by insulting everybody whom Harry liked under the moon in undeserving, prejudicial way. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 19:02:50 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:02:50 -0000 Subject: Why not Actually Re-Write? Just for fun. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180481 aussie wrote: > > > Europeans connected to Beaubatons and Drumstrang could have been better represented than just by Fleur in the last book. Carol responds: One of the things I liked about GoF was DD's attempt to bring the young Wizards of Hogwarts, Beauxbatons, and Durmstrang together, exposing them to cultures almost as foreign to them as the Muggle world. I liked seeing the boys and girls of Durmstrang admiring the gold dishes and *not* practicing Dark magic (the worst we see of them is that one of them dribbles food down his front) and the boys and girls of Beauxbatons to honor their headmistress and not sitting down until she did. I also liked seeing the students from different schools dancing together at the Yule Ball and all the students and staff from all the schools standing to honor Cedric Diggory. Harry's interactions with Viktor Krum showed that he was "all right" and that Hagrid's warning not to go wandering off with "bloody Krum" was just prejudice. And Hermione was still writing to Krum in OoP. What came of all that? Only a marriage between Bill and Fleur (I did enjoy the conciliation scene between Molly and Fleur in HBP) and a cameo by Viktor (complete with an allusion to Film!Viktor's funny little beard) serving only to show that Krum is still an international Quidditch star, Krum sees that Hermione is "taken," and Krum associates what we later learn is the DH symbol with Grindelwald. No sign of any other Durmstrang students or Beauxbatons students (only a few Veela relatives for the Weasley Twins, or rather, Fred, to flirt with), and no indication that Viktor stayed around to join the fight against Voldemort for all his smoldering hatred of that other long-since imprisoned Dark Wizard, Grindelwald. My impression is that, since Voldemort has not yet endangered Romania, Bulgaria, or whatever country Durmstrang is in, he's not a threat to anything Viktor values (even Quidditch!) and, consequently, this isn't his fight. Part of the problem, for me, is that *$%#@*!!!! Elder Wand, which not only makes victory too easy for Harry without his ever having touched it (and results, altogether unfairly, in the death of my favorite character, Severus Snape) but also distracts Voldemort from expanding his quest for power into Continental Europe. What's the point of "international magical cooperation" if the rest of Europe sits back and lets Voldemort take over Britain, not raising a finger because they have not yet been threatened themselves? (They don't have time to investigate the murders of Grindelwald, whom few would mourn, anyway, or that of the by-now ancient wandmaker, Gregorovitch. By the time those murders could have been traced to LV, he's dead. As for the unnamed mother and children, perhaps they're Muggles whose deaths are ignored by the European WW.) It seems like a repeat of Grindelwald's (much worse) takeover of the European WW in the 1930s and 40s--Britain stayed out of the struggle until it found itself threatened and appealed to Dumbledore for help. Now the reverse appears to be happening. Not a soul from continental Europe (Charlie Weasley doesn't count--he works in Romania but is himself English) other than Fleur, the transplanted Frenchwoman, shows up to defend Hogwarts, the last bastion of resistance to Voldemort. Of course, they're not really needed, but, still, it's disappointing to me as a reader that those schools and their students were introduced, raising the hope of "international magical cooperation," only to amount to nothing in the end except for Viktor Krum's commentary on "Grindelwald's symbol." Carol, wondering why Madame Maxime didn't show up at Fleur's wedding and thinking the reason must be the attention that the horses and house-sized carriage would attract From muellem at bc.edu Tue Jan 8 19:12:46 2008 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:12:46 -0000 Subject: That "Love" thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180482 > > >>Besty Hp: > > > It explains why Snape was made pathetic and weak by his "love" > > > for Lily. > > > >>Pippin: > > Huh? To me this speaks of a basic misunderstanding of the plot. :) > > Snape was made strong by his love for Lily, strong enough to defy > > Voldemort. > > Betsy Hp: > Well, no. It was a madly in love Snape who both joined the Death > Eaters and served Voldemort. So yeah, no strength there. In fact, > I'd say it was Snape's longing for love and his inability to properly > define it that made him such easy pickings for Voldemort. (A fool > wearing his heart on his sleeve, perhaps?) And part of his inability > to recognize love came from his not recognizing how Lily was treating > him. Lily never loved Snape: she never allowed herself to see him. colebiancardi: Did that infamous interview about Snape's lovelife mention that someone DID love Snape? from: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm {first quote} MA: Oh, here's one [from our forums] that I've really got to ask you. Has Snape ever been loved by anyone? JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort, who never has. Okay, one more each! colebiancardi back again: so, originally, I had thought it was Snape's mum who loved him, but if we are to believe DH's "luv" story, it seems that perhaps Lily did "love" Snape. however, there was an earlier interview with JKR: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-connectiontransc2.htm {second quote} Lydon: Er - one of our connec- ... one of our internet correspondents wondered if Snape is going to fall in love? JKR: Yeah? Who on earth would want Snape in love with them, that is a very horrible idea. Erm ... and then a later interview: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html {third quote} Jaclyn: Did lily ever have feelings back for snape J.K. Rowling: Yes. She might even have grown to love him romantically (she certainly loved him as a friend) if he had not loved Dark Magic so much, and been drawn to such loathesome people and acts. colebiancardi: so, I can only assume by the first quote that when JKR states "love" she did not MEAN romantically, as in the third quote, she does state that Lily loved Snape as a friend. In the second quote, it seems she is toying with us, because Snape loved Lily romantically. So, what was I getting at? Oh yeah Did Lily love Snape? Well, yes, but platonically. I think based on the second quote of JKR's, that Lily would have recoiled in horror if she knew the deep feelings that Snape had for her. just my 2 knuts From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Tue Jan 8 19:55:01 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:55:01 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180483 > Betsy Hp: > > I expected Harry to have to deal with Slytherin as a group of people rather than an overarching philosophy. I won't say that the codified prejudice of Slytherin was correct; on the contrary, it was something that obviously needed fixing. But I also thought constantly attacking Slytherin, labeling them as the source of all that was bad in the WW would leave the problem unresolved and buried. Which, it did, IMO. Tiffany: I agree that the overarching philosophy of Harry's helped to reinforce the negative aspects of Slytherins & justifies maintaining the status quo about the house as a whole. I personally knew that Harry was prejudiced since SS & he used Slytherin as a scapegoat, instead of addressing the real issue on his own. He did have moments when he had to rethink his ideas on the Slytherin house though & for that I think he had a huge coming of age moment. >revaunchanistx: > > The only way the status quo would change on a massive scale like you want it to is through a regime like Voldemort wanted to instill, where he would have employed tactics that worked in Cambodia, Stalin's Russia, and Red China and yes even Nazi Germany. Tiffany: I saw a lot of connections between those regimes & LV in the canon as well. I, however, was really impressed by what LV could do early on, esp. in SS. I've lost some respect for him since because his ego got in the way a lot, but his knowledge of black magic & the dark arts has always been awe-inspiring to me. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 20:08:29 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:08:29 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180484 > > Betsy Hp: > > > > I expected Harry to have to deal with Slytherin as a group of > people rather than an overarching philosophy. I won't say that the > codified prejudice of Slytherin was correct; on the contrary, it was > something that obviously needed fixing. But I also thought > constantly attacking Slytherin, labeling them as the source of all > that was bad in the WW would leave the problem unresolved and > buried. Which, it did, IMO. Alla: But didn't Harry deal with them as group of people as well? And here is where surprises lied IMO not in their overarching philosophy, which is bad, but he saw that some Slytherins do not follow that philosophy and fight bravely and love, and die for Voldemort free world, etc. Didn't the problem show the ways to resolve itself? Tiffany: I agree that the overarching philosophy of Harry's helped to reinforce the negative aspects of Slytherins & justifies maintaining the status quo about the house as a whole. I personally knew that Harry was prejudiced since SS & he used Slytherin as a scapegoat, instead of addressing the real issue on his own. He did have moments when he had to rethink his ideas on the Slytherin house though & for that I think he had a huge coming of age moment. Alla: But being prejudiced is different from disliking someone or somebody with true reason. You think Harry had no true reason to dislike Draco? Or do you put different meaning in the word prejudice? I am seriously asking about different meaning of the word, since I totally had misunderstandings based on semantics quite a few times. I mean, if one were to tell me that Harry did not know everything about Slytherins, sure, I would say it is possible. But based on what Harry saw, how were his ideas prejudicial? I cannot blame him for not wanting to go deeper and learn more about those who think that his best friend for example is less worthy of being a member of WW than Malfoys. Especially since she is always ahead of Malfoy even in the classes. And what ideas about Slytherins did Harry have to rethink? Tiffany: I saw a lot of connections between those regimes & LV in the canon as well. I, however, was really impressed by what LV could do early on, esp. in SS. I've lost some respect for him since because his ego got in the way a lot, but his knowledge of black magic & the dark arts has always been awe-inspiring to me. Alla: It is interesting how different we view things. I on the contrary gained some respect for Voldemort by the end of book 7. Not much mind you but some. I really appreciated that JKR showed me him killing people finally AND I really liked how he seemed to thought of and implement the plan of infiltration the ministry. I did not even realize that killing of Amelia Bones was the part of it. In the earlier books he often makes me giggle more than be scared of him. I mean even in graveyard where he made Harry suffer, him untying Harry and asking him to duel was stupidity I thought. JMO, All From tubazrcool at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 20:19:49 2008 From: tubazrcool at yahoo.com (tubazrcool) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:19:49 -0000 Subject: Chapter 10 discussions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180485 Questions: 1. Sirius' room is described as dusty and there is a spider's web and mice inhabiting it. The decorations are also from his teen years as well. Do you think that Sirius actually stayed in his old room in "The Order of the Phoenix" or that he stayed in another bedroom? tubazrcool: He stayed in his room, I would think. But it also mentions that he stayed with Witherwings alot for company. 3. Why is Lily's letter addressed to "Padfoot" instead of Sirius? Is this just a term of affection or was Sirius underground at the time of the letter? If a term of affection, why doesn't she call James "Prongs" in the letter? She calls Peter "Wormy", so it seems she does know about the nicknames. tubazrcool: Since the nicknames are only known by a select group of people, I find it appropriate that she uses them. She may have just slipped up calling James by his real name, since she probably didn't call him "Prongs" in everyday talk. But it could have been that no one would have known that Padfoot was Sirius and "Wormy" was Peter, so if intercepted by a DE or dark wizard (think Draco, before he went all DE), the reader would know that Lily and James and Harry were all alive and well, but wouldn't know who they were contacting, as it could be used against them, and the contactees tortured for information. 4. Kreacher mentions that Sirius' leaving home broke his mother's heart. Does this new bit of information seem to contradict Sirius' story about his relationship with his family? To answer this question with a female streak --> Every mother would obviously mourn for their child's departure -- whether death or "never speaking to them again". To answer this question with a male streak ---> Maybe Kreacher saw Madame Black crying and thought she was sad. We know from OOTP on, that the Black family was very pureblood and Slytherin-oriented, so perhaps Madame Black was weeping purely for the fact that it was now evident that Sirius was a do- gooder and was associating with muggleborns and halfbloods and "traitors." Maybe the tears streamed down her cheeks because she knew then that Sirius would never serve Voldemort, since he ran away from their home, which was all Voldemort-supportive. It seems likely the tears stopped after the family found out Voldemort's true goal, as mentioned in OOTP. 5. Regulus joined the DEs when he was 16, which means that Voldemort really had no age limit for his recruits. How does this contrast with the Order of the Phoenix? Ignoring that the DE's are evil and the Order is good, do you think that the DEs support the notion of fighting for what you believe in, regardless of age? In other words, do you agree with the Order's stance of not allowing underage wizards to join or do you agree with the Death Eater's stance instead? I really don't think that the DE's really cared who joined their squad, or how old they were (within reason), as long as they were "for the cause." The Order, however, doesn't believe in subjecting kids, or even young adults, to that kind of Musketeer phrase, no matter the life experience. This makes the Order on the Light side, since no self-respecting adult would approve of a kid fighting when there is an "since-there-is-possible-capture-if-caught- you-will-most-likely-die-and-you-better-be-okay-with-this-or-don't- bother-joining" attitude. (My apologies for the long winded dashed phrase). 6. After Kreacher returns from the cave and tells his tale to Regulus, where do you think Regulus went? Regulus' return to Kreacher shows a Regulus with a disturbed state of mind, strange, according to Kreacher. Do you think Regulus talked to anyone or just did book research? I think Regulus would have done a lot of research in any way he could, possibly appealing to Horace Slughorn for information, or read whatever books he could find, I doubt the ones dealing with Horcruxes would have been light-hearted and sugar-coated, complete with cherry. 8. How did you feel when Regulus' death was revealed? I found this to be the most tragic death of all of the deaths in the series. Do you feel that Regulus redeemed himself? I do feel that way. Regulus' death was too premature, but it explains the note. "By the time you read this, I will already be gone." Don't know if that's the actual quote, since I don't have the book with me. I thought, and I probably wasn't alone on this, thought that he meant went into hiding and I actually thought that the locket was in Grimmauld Place from the moment the note was signed RAB. I linked it to Regulus and remembered the locket from the house-cleaning. He was redeemed right then and there in my mind. I was surprised when Hermione didn't come up with the answer either during the last bit of school or the early part of summer. Mrs. Know-it-all apparently doesn't have any great common sense. Harry should have guessed it too being that Sirius and he did have a long talk about the Black family and its ins-and-outs in the 5th book. Sorry I haven't participated in the other discussions. No computer at home and college stuff interferes with my nerdy life. tubazrcool From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 20:27:54 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:27:54 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180486 revaunchanistx: > > What? Did you miss Harry and Draco's meeting in Madam Malkin's where Draco oozed prejudice and privilege out of every pore, saying half-bloods and mud bloods shouldn't be allowed in and my father is trying to get me on the house team and insulted Hagrid, Harry's first true friend. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Oh, that's the scene where I first fell in *love* with Draco. Tiny little thing doing his best to make a new friend and saying *all* the wrong things. Hilarious *and* poignant. > > > Alla: > > You agree that that tiny little thing in your opinion ( or tiny prejudiced pureblooded bastard in mine) was saying all the wrong things, yes? > > I say he was saying all prejudicial things to the core (spotting prejudice and privilege - LOVE and will have to adopt this expression, hehe). So, where do you get that Harry was prejudiced towards Draco? I mean if you say he disliked Draco after his speeches Harry's parents, Harry's first true friend and Harry's second true friend, I will surely agree with you. > > I think Draco earned every bit of dislike from Harry by insulting everybody whom Harry liked under the moon in undeserving, prejudicial way. Carol responds; As long as we're presenting purely personal reactions here, I might as well throw in mine since they fall somewhere in the middle. I neither loved nor hated Draco in the first interview, and I did have some degree of sympathy for his tendency to put his foot in his mouth, cluelessly spouting his parents' philosophy and opinion (which I'm sure he had never heard contradicted), and, of course, he had no idea that Hagrid was a friend of Harry's. He did not, however, refer to Half-Bloods at all, nor did he use the term "Mudblood," which does not appear until CoS. He merely refers to "the other kind," meaning Muggle-borns, as not deserving of inclusion in Hogwarts. (Harry says that his parents were "a witch and a wizard," which Draco would interpret as meaning that he was at least a Half-Blood and possibly a pure-blood. I don't suppose it occurs to him that both parents might be "Mudbloods," which would mean that their child still didn't have a drop of wizard blood in him by the reckoning of pure-blood supremacists.) At any rate, Draco struck me as slightly spoiled (saying that he'd "bully Father into buying him a broom"; we haven't yet met Lucius, who would buy Draco and the whole team excellent brooms to give them the edge over Gryffindor but is not likely to be bullied by the son he criticizes for getting lower marks than "a girl of no wizarding heritage" and refuses to buy the Hand of Glory for). I agree that he seemed like a rich little snob, regarding Hagrid, whom he doesn't know ("I say! Who is that man?") as "a sort of servant," no doubt based on his parents' attitude toward the gamekeeper. But he's completely neutral toward Harry, only wanting to know his surname ("blood" again), whether he plays Quidditch, and what House he expects to be placed in (his attitude toward Hufflepuff--he'd rather be sent home than be placed there--foreshadowing James's words about Slytherin though, of course, we don't know that--is not that different from Hagrid's view that Hufflepuffs are "duffers"). Harry, too, starts out with a neutral attitude, but his dislike grows as the oblivious young stranger reveals the ideas that he's been indoctrinated with, reminds him of Dudley (which can hardly create warm feelings in Harry), and dismisses Harry's new friend as inferior because he works for his living (aristocratic, not "blood," prejudice). I didn't mind Draco; he just seemed to be a relic of the nineteenth century somehow transported to the twentieth. But I did wonder what would have happened if Draco had not interrupted his own question, "What's your surname?" and Harry had been allowed to answer the question. (I suppose we'd just have had the scene on the train prematurely, minus Ron and Draco's bodyguards.) Anyway, I came away from their first encounter thinking that Draco was all about class and privilege whereas Harry represented what used to be called "the common man," and it was obvious where JKR expected the reader's sympathy to lie. Even after the incident on the Hogwarts, when Draco tries to become Harry's friend because he now knows who he is ("the famous Harry Potter") and insults Ron (again, no doubt, mouthing what he's heard at home about the Weasleys), I felt a bit sorry for him. Draco hasn't learned to think for himself (hardly surprising at eleven), he's evidently had no exposure to progressive ideas, and he's never been taught graciousness or tact. He thinks, just as Slughorn does in HBP, that it's all about connections. (He, Draco, can teach Harry to avoid "the wrong sort.") I think he's completely at a loss as to why Harry refuses to shake his hand, not realizing that Harry is judging Ron as an individual, not on the basis of his family's (relative) poverty or their views on Muggles and Muggleborns. Harry at this point has no preconceptions, unlike Draco (and Hagrid), on which to base a prejudice. He does, however, come to develop such preconceptions with regard to Slytherin, thanks to both Hagrid and Draco, and by the time of the Sorting ceremony, he sees Slytherin as the House of Voldemort and his supporters, with which he wants nothing to do. Had he not met Draco, he might have been Sorted into Slytherin. And that might have made an even more interesting series. All quotes in this post are from memory as I don't have time to look them up. Carol, hoping that this post contains no embarrassing blunders like Voldemort's potentially deadly "Expelliarmi" (hey, I was thinking about the plural form and not about the context, 0-p!!) From heidi at heidi8.com Tue Jan 8 22:12:25 2008 From: heidi at heidi8.com (Heidi Tandy) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:12:25 -0500 Subject: ADMIN on Copyright Issues Message-ID: <5913e6f80801081412i57dbf678oe00e6c3b3ee1de64@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180487 The Mod Squad looks over the list and despite the presence of lawyers on said Squad, does not give any legal advice in this post, but wishes to clear up a few issues and redirect some conversations to OTC. First, any discussion of the legal generalities or specifics of the lawsuit by JK Rowling & company against the publishers of the HP Lexicon book should take place on OT-Chatter as they're not about the books' canon, or even what's hosted on the Lexicon site. Second, anyone with an interest in these issues might want to keep an eye on http://Fandom_Lawyers.livejournal.com and on http://transformativeworks.org/- the former is a community where people - lawyers and nonlawyers - can discuss legal issues as they pertain to fandom activities. There's been a lot of discussion there regarding fanfic in the last four or five years, so it's a good resource for a range of opinions. TransformativeWorks.org (aka the Organization for Transformative Works or OTW) is a project that was started by a number of fandomers last summer, which will incorporate, among other things, an archive of fan-created works and a legal defense project to protect fans and their works when they are threatened by The Powers that Be. Third, I wanted to address some things discussed in Pippin Fowler's post of last week, because we on the Mod Squad don't want Listies to get paranoid or even concerned about Things Here at HPfGU. Pippin said: > However, Yahoo has been quite > skittish about copyright infringement, when a copyright holder > complains; or so it was when a knitting yahoo group was shut down by a > knitting designer's complaint some years ago. JKR seems unlikely to > complain about fan fiction or the like here, but who knows? If I were > her, and I were here, reading some of the comments over the past couple > of months, I probably wouldn't feel a great deal of warmth and caring > for this group, with a few exceptions. It doesn't matter whether she feels one way or another towards this Yahoogroup. She cannot get rid of it on her own and she has no legal grounds to ask Yahoo to get rid of it. A copyright holder cannot control the discussion of his or her work; she can only limit the amount of exact words from her work that are used in works created by third parties. And since Listies don't use paragraphs and paragraphs of word-for-word content from JKR's books in making posts here on HPfGU, there is no copyrightinfringement going on in the discussions we have here. Furthermore, JKR has affirmatively stated that she has no problem with fanfiction (at least, she has no problem with fanfic that's not rated NC-17). I'm one of the admins on FictionAlley.org, which is the largest HP-specific fan-creativity archive, and we have regularly worked with WB, Scholastic, Bloomsbury and other licensees on promoting the HP books and films; if they don't have a problem with the amount of fanfic and fanart *we* host, they certainly wouldn't have a problem with fic written in the context of a discussion here. But even if they did, there are a number of lawyers standing by to support fan creativity. Fair use and the aspects of copyright law that concern transformative works all support the idea that fanfiction, when not sold for a profit, falls under the parameters of fair use. If you're more interested in reading up on the issue, I highly recommend Rebecca Tushnet's articles at http://www.tushnet.com/law/myfairladies.pdf and http://www.tushnet.com/law/fanficarticle.html as well as the article at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=984919 by Anupam Chander & Madhavi Sunder. As Professor Tushnet said last year, "If we don't hold on to fair use with both hands, we'll find that norms have shifted." Here at HPfGU, we hold on to fair use with both hands, plus our feet and a team of specially trained owls and poltergeists, because it's the only way that our fandom - and every other fandom - can feel secure in our creativity, whether it takes the form of fic, arts, vids, roleplaying or "meta". We on the Mod Squad ask that any further discussion of copyright issues go to the OTChatter list, where some interesting discussions are going on right now; any discussion of the patentability of Professor Snape's creations can stay here on Main, though! Heidi for the MEG Team [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 8 22:29:25 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:29:25 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180488 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: Alla: > Well, the initial argument was that you spotted right away that Harry > was prejudiced to Draco, no? > > And since I agree with revaunchanistx completely, that is what I am > wondering about. > > You agree that that tiny little thing in your opinion ( or tiny > prejudiced pureblooded bastard in mine) was saying all the wrong > things, yes? > > I say he was saying all prejudicial things to the core (spotting > prejudice and privilege - LOVE and will have to adopt this > expression, hehe). So, where do you get that Harry was prejudiced > towards Draco? I mean if you say he disliked Draco after his speeches > Harry's parents, Harry's first true friend and Harry's second true > friend, I will surely agree with you. > > Harry disliked Draco very much after he heard what Draco had to say > on the subject. > > What I am wondering is where you see prejudice in Harry's dislike of > Draco? > > I see prejudice in calling Harry's dislike prejudice. > > Oh, and of course I see nothing wrong in being prejudiced towards the > fictional character, God knows I was told that I am prejudiced > against Slytherins myself many times, LOL and I see nothing wrong > with it. I mean I happened to think that they deserved and especially > Draco deserved all I thought about them and more, but even if I was > prejudiced against fictional character so what. > > But if you are saying that you spotted right away that Harry was > prejudiced against Draco, that argument I am not buying. > > I think Draco earned every bit of dislike from Harry by insulting > everybody whom Harry liked under the moon in undeserving, prejudicial > way. > > JMO, > > Alla Geoff: >From my perspective, I think this is a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. The more I go back and read the initial contacts between Draco and Harry, the more I see the results of their pre-conditioning. The more I lament the outcome. Very recently, I said on a different thread that I spent some years teaching 11 year olds; I worked with 11-16 boys until the school became a 13-18 mixed comprehensive, Eleven year olds see the world in black and white terms and they usually have their own set of values covering that situation, which, in many cases, are derived from their backgrounds. Draco is an only child who has only had contact with others such as Vincent Crabbe and Gregory Goyle of whom I get the impression that they are bit short in the upstairs department and generally do as someone else tells them. Lucius has been brainwashing Draco for eleven years. 'You are a pureblood and superior. Muggle-born folk and half-bloods are beneath us and contemptible'. Harry has only recently been introduced to the Wizarding World. It is a place of surprises and magic (in the non-magical sense!) and he has new friends - Hagrid and Ron - who treat him with kindness and even a bit of awe. 'You are Harry Potter. Wow.' Add to that Hagrid's warning of the perils of Slytherin and sme of Ron's gloomy comments and we have our two little friends on track for a collision course. So when Harry and Draco first meet, anything the other says is put against the black and white value scale which they have worked out in their heads. If the other says anything which doesn't match the scale, hackles are raised, warning bells sound 'do not trust this person. Do not be friendly.' Unfortunately, the opinion which the two lads hold for each other is allowed to become entrenched from this point on and it is not until later in their school career - perhaps too late - that they begin to see that the black and white is actually grey. Harry sees Draco's exposed fears in Myrtle's bathroom and on the tower in HBP while Draco sees another side of Harry in the Room of Requirement in DH. But they haven't the time to stop to look at what this could mean for their relationship. There is too much from the past to be worked through in the time available before Voldemort moves on Hogwarts. I feel sorry for both our protagonists. Both have been given very distorted views of the Wizarding World. At times, both have behaved badly towards the other. I like to think that the nod at the railway station in 2017 is a quiet indicator that, somewhere along the line, a truce line has been reached. Sadly, that may be left to our own imagination or to fan fiction..... From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 23:41:21 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:41:21 -0000 Subject: HouseElves/Pettigrew/Shunpike/Bertha/Slytherin/Rewrites/Economic/Carol, Carol In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180489 > > > Pippin: > > > The explanation's in "The Other Minister" - "Yes, alive," said > Fudge. "That is--I don't know--is a man alive if he can't be killed? I > don't really understand it and Dumbledore won't explain properly -- > but anyway he's certainly got a body and is walking and talking and > killing, so I suppose, for the purposes of our discussion, yes, he's > alive." > > > > > > But not for the purposes of the prophecy, evidently. > > > > a_svirn: > > That would mean that Harry "hadn't been alive for the purposes of > the Prophesy" as well. > > > Carol responds: > Besides, Fudge isn't explaining the Prophecy, which he hasn't heard. > He's explaining how LV could be "alive" when he can't be killed. > That has nothing to do with "neither can live while the other > survives" being interprete as "one of us has to kill the other." > > Now, I happen to agree that LV isn't really "alive" in any normal > sense; he ought to have died from the first rebounded AK and would > have done so had it not been for the various Horcruxes and he has only > a mangled fragment of a soul with which to possess a body not his own > or inhabit a magically created/restored body. a_svirn: Well, yes that does make sense. > Carol: Harry, I suppose, can't > "live" in the sense of not having a normal life while LV survives. a_svirn: But it seems so silly, really. For one thing Harry lived a normal live for two years after Voldemort's return (well, sort of): he attended school, did his homework, started and ended relationship with girls etc. For another, to live in a sense `to have a normal live' seems like a very trivial thing for the Prophesy to be about. Besides, either it wasn't how Dumbledore initially interpreted the meaning (because in this interpretation it doesn't really mean anything, except the obvious ? that with Voldemort's return Harry's can't be serene and carefree), or he always knew that the Prophesy was meaningless. Then how account for his long talks with Harry about the Prophesy? To say nothing about risking the phoenixes' lives for the sake of guarding it? > Carol: > But that has nothing to do with Harry's interpretation of the phrase > as meaning "one of us has to kill the other" and DD's cool agreement > with that statement. (He knows that LV has to "kill" Harry to destroy > the soul bit, but he's concealing that bit of information from Harry.) > "Neither can die while the other survives" would make more sense, but > those words couldn't be interpreted to mean "One of us has to kill the > other," either. Harry comes away from the discussion of the Prophecy > thinking that he either has to commit murder or be murdered, and he > bases that deduction on "Neither can live while the other survives." > Odd, given that they're both surviving at the time, and no mention of > killing occurs in those words. a_svirn: Yes!!!! > Carol: > It has nothing to do with your understanding of English (which happens > to be excellent), a-svirn. It has to do with JKR's (and therefore > Harry's) apparently thinking that the words mean something that they > can't be interpreted to mean. > > Carol, realizing that a prophecy has to be ambiguous but not to the > point of making words mean something that they can't possibly mean a_svirn: I haven't followed her interviews recently, but has she perhaps explained this bit of semantic gymnastic? I remember her saying after OotP that she was particularly proud of her wording of the Prophesy. It would be nice to learn what exactly she was so proud of. a_svirn, thanking Carol for her vote of confidence! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 00:57:00 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:57:00 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180490 --- "rlevatter" wrote: > > ... > > ... > > Defining terms: > > Mudblood: a witch/wizard with two Muggle parents > Half-blood: a witch/wizard with one Muggle and one Magic > parent > Pure-blood: a witch/wizard with two Magic parents > > From bottom of page 842 (paperback edition), OoP [Dumbledore > explaining the prophesy to Harry]: > > "He [Voldemort] chose the boy he thought most likely to be a > danger to him...and notice this, Harry. He chose, not the > pureblood [Neville Longbottom] (which, according to his > creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being or knowing), > but the half-blood, like himself." > > Voldemort IS a half-blood, witch mother and Muggle father. > And Neville is a pureblood, whose parents were both magical. > But Harry is also a pureblood, is he not? Both James and > Lily were magical. ... > > Or does it? What am I missing? > > RL > bboyminn: Here is the problem we always run into when we discuss this, people assume that 'Half-Blood' is a constant, it is not, it is a variable. When Dumbledore refers to Harry as a half-blood he has established, though a longer discussion, a context for his statement. That context is a comparison between Harry and Voldemort. When Pure-Bloods use the term 'half-blood' it is in the context of prejudice, and not an absolute statement of fact. So, context is the driving factor. 'Half-blood' means different things to different people at different times in different conversations and in different contexts. Harry is a full-blood, and I acknowledge that term doesn't appear in the books, but it best describes Harry's situation. He has two magical parents, but on his mother's side, he has no magical history. She, Lily, is the progeny of muggles. But as is already noted, she is a fully magical person. Harry, therefore, is the progeny of two magical people making him fully magical. At true half-blood by definition is someone with one muggle parent and one magical parent like Seamus. Other references to half-blood reflect prejudice or context. It's a variable. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 01:27:11 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 01:27:11 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180491 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > ... > > > > The same with Ron, immediately after the battle, Ron would > > have wanted to continue working to round up the last of > > the Dark Wizards and to make sure they were all brought to > > justice. Once that job was done and the work load eased up, > > he might have gone to help George at night or on the > > weekends. Eventually, he might have quit being a Auror to > > assist George full time. I'm sure there was more money in > > George's shop than there was in being a civil servant. > > > > ... > > va32h: > > Here's my issue with that, Steve. I am sick and tired of > having to do mental gymnastics to make Rowling's > inconsistencies work. Bboyminn: But I don't really see myself doing 'mental gymnastics'. I see the problem as you assuming one precise moment in time and trying to make every statement fit. That doesn't happen in fiction of real life. When JKR talks about what Ron did /after/, I assume she is speaking in the context of Ron's lifetime. How many jobs have you had in your lifetime? I know I've had MANY. I don't see my explanation as groping or stretching at all. It's just common sense. I mean do you really think Neville instantly went from Student to teacher in a day. Now that is 'mental gymnastics'. More likely and more logically, he work his way up to it, and /eventually/ ended up there. How is that any different than Ron? Ron stated out in one place, just like all of us, and ended up in another place, with a transition period in the middle. Just like real life. Combining post - As to Carol's suggestion that it was unrealistic for Harry, Ron, and others to go directly to Aurors without training, let me ask, how well did the real Aurors do in the final battle or in the year leading up to the final battle? Harry and Ron did what a whole office of corrupted and co-opted Auror's could not do. I think On-The-Job-Training and personal experience counts for a lot here. But that doesn't mean their training as Auror's ended. Again, on the job training. They could train and work as Aurors at the same time. Nothing wrong with that. True they didn't meet the standard requirements, but with their fresh victory over Voldemort and a favorable Minister, I think they might have made some exceptions. In my view many of these concerns only seem unrealistic because that is how you chose to see them. Can't blame JKR for your choices. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 01:35:10 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 01:35:10 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180492 > Geoff: > From my perspective, I think this is a case of six of one and half a > dozen of the other. The more I go back and read the initial contacts > between Draco and Harry, the more I see the results of their > pre-conditioning. The more I lament the outcome. > Alla: I snipped rather randomly, but I think I am replying to your other points as well. Oh well, anybody can go upthread and read them :) The bottom line for me though is whether you (hypothetical you) can find anything that you can LIKE in anything what Draco said to Harry in that scene. I am not talking about Harry not knowing everything about Draco (although truly even at the end of book 7 I cannot see anything very likable about him, but that's just me), because of course he does not know everything about him. My only point was very strong disagreement that Harry's INITIAL dislike of Draco was based on prejudice, that's all. What I am trying to say is that I do not see any reason WHY Harry would like Draco based on him badmouthing his friends. That's all I am saying - that Harry's initial dislike of Draco was very understandable and very real thing, to me of course. I do not see anything PREJUDICIAL about it. For example, say Draco did something nice to Harry, or even was perfectly neutral to him, did not do anything whatsoever. And then we would hear Harry's thoughts - Oh Oh this kid is a Slytherin, I do not want to be friends with him. THAT in my mind is prejudice, absolutely. But Harry's dislike is not based on that, no? Harry's dislike based on Draco's badmouthing Hagrid and then Ron. And by the way, what does Hagrid's and Ron friendly treatment of Harry has to do with evaluation of Draco's behavior? I mean, that's the point, no? Harry liked them and Draco badmouthed them, badmouthed them with no real offenses of theirs whatsoever. Again, what IS prejudicial in Harry's dislike then? Here is another example. I absolutely think that I am prejudicial against Kreacher. I wanted little twit's head cut off very badly. I mean, I am an intelligent person and I totally get that what author wanted to convey here is not what I am getting out of the books, but I cannot help myself. Why? Because every time I read about Kreacher, all I can think about is how badly Sirius suffered in OOP and little shmack went and contributed to Sirius' dying. Accordingly despite me understanding in my head that Kreacher was being mistreated by wizards and Sirius, I cannot bring myself to be sympathetic and I feel that Harry was being WAY too sympathetic than little twit deserved. But but despite me feeling that way Kreacher WAS being mistreated if I read the book objectively, was he not? Same thing in this scene, I am not asking how somebody can love Draco's behavior in this scene, this is an emotional reaction and does not have to be explained IMO. Just as me liking Sirius' and hating Kreacher does not have to be explained. But what I AM asking is how one can say that HARRY is the one who is prejudiced in this scene (and I am only talking about this scene now) if one reads the scene dispassionately. Harry did not spout insults on Draco, Draco did on his friends and if Harry disliked it, that's prejudice on his part? I do not think so, but that's just my opinion obviously. JMO, Alla From va32h at comcast.net Wed Jan 9 01:48:03 2008 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 01:48:03 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180493 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: >When JKR talks about what Ron did > /after/, I assume she is speaking in the context of Ron's > lifetime. How many jobs have you had in your lifetime? I > know I've had MANY. > > I don't see my explanation as groping or stretching at all. > It's just common sense. > > I mean do you really think Neville instantly went from > Student to teacher in a day. Now that is 'mental gymnastics'. > More likely and more logically, he work his way up to it, and > /eventually/ ended up there. > > How is that any different than Ron? Ron stated out in one > place, just like all of us, and ended up in another place, > with a transition period in the middle. Just like real life. va32h: It doesn't matter how many jobs I've had or you've had. In JKR's fictional world - do the characters ever change jobs? With the exception of Arthur's promotion (which is not a change of job, since he still works for the Ministry), no. Teachers are always teachers (even Lupin was apparently a "professor" before arriving at Hogwarts since it was stamped on his case. The same lady pushes the food trolley on the Hogwarts Express. Stan keeps working the Knight Bus. Madam Malkin stays in her robe shop. Bill works for Gringotts in Egypt, he works for Gringotts back in London. What we are shown in the books are characters who go to school, get one job, and stay with it til they die. In "real life" we often fall in love with more than one person, but I notice that in Rowling's world you meet the love of your life no later than your late teens and if you screw up that relationship you spend the rest of your life alone, tortured and miserable. But that's another story. The point is - I don't believe for a nanosecond that JKR really meant that Ron had two jobs or changed jobs, and simply answered the same question, posed at two different times, with two different answers in an attempt to explain that Ron had two jobs without actually saying that Ron had two jobs. If the truth is that Ron had two jobs, why didn't JKR say "he worked at WWW, then became an Auror."? No, she said, "he worked at WWW." Then days or weeks later in an entirely different interview said "he was an Auror." To conclude that in both answers she really meant that Ron had two jobs - is mental gymnastics, IMO. She makes these answers up off the top of her head. Which is perfectly fine, really. She just ought to admit it. In any case, I don't feel obligated to accept as canon something she made up on the spot. I care enough about these characters to seriously sit and think about what they would do with their lives and what they would want. Call me presumptuous (I'm sure someone will), but I think a dedicated reader's thoughtful consideration trumps the creatrix's off-the-cuff remark. Steve, were you the listee who really wanted to know what Hagrid was knitting on the Underground when he took Harry to Diagon Alley? And I said JKR probably hadn't even thought of that and if asked, would just make something up? And you said (I think it was you) that would be fine, you just wanted the answer from JKR, whether she made it up right then or not. I asked then - is an answer from JKR inherently "better" than what the reader concludes, if the reader's answer comes after careful analysis but JKR's answer is clearly made up right there on the spot? I had no idea that I would actually get to answer this question. Obviously, I would say NO. va32h From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Jan 9 06:55:55 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:55:55 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0801082255oe38a93aidc1bb0f773e4ec3b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180494 Va32h: The point is - I don't believe for a nanosecond that JKR really meant that Ron had two jobs or changed jobs, and simply answered the same question, posed at two different times, with two different answers in an attempt to explain that Ron had two jobs without actually saying that Ron had two jobs. If the truth is that Ron had two jobs, why didn't JKR say "he worked at WWW, then became an Auror."? No, she said, "he worked at WWW." Then days or weeks later in an entirely different interview said "he was an Auror." To conclude that in both answers she really meant that Ron had two jobs - is mental gymnastics, IMO. Lynda: I get your point. Really, I do. But I will say this. Currently, I have 3 jobs. At the same time. So I don't understand why Ron couldn't have more than one job concurrently. Oh yes, I also have friends, family, and a couple of hobbies that take up a good bit of my free time. And another thing too, when I changed schools districts several years ago I was roundly scolded by my family for not referring to my job as a new job, even though I simply changed the district my check was drawn on (switched from a county to a city district--my title was the same, my job function was the same, I was even working in the same classroom, just for a different district so I didn't consider it a new job, but everyone else did), so with that consideration, perhaps members of the WW do get new jobs from time to time. Lynda--not meaning to be abrupt, but its late and that I've had a long day. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Jan 9 07:35:50 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:35:50 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180495 > lizzyben wrote: > > Another oddity, to me, is that while the text seems to approve of > Muggleborn/Wizard marriages, it seems to look down on Muggle/Wizard > marriages. After all, the only two we hear about are totally > dysfunctional & poisonous. So, it's not very approving of > relationships between people of different cultures. > > Sorry, am I missing something? What about Lily Evans and James Potter? Susan From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Wed Jan 9 09:18:09 2008 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:18:09 -0000 Subject: Electricity & magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180496 I've been informed on this site that magic interferes with electrical devices. Since platform 9 3/4 is a pretty large magic site, I'm wondering how this affects the power on all the other platforms. Barry From salilouisa at googlemail.com Wed Jan 9 10:33:51 2008 From: salilouisa at googlemail.com (salilouisa) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:33:51 -0000 Subject: Electricity & magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180497 Barry: I've been informed on this site that magic interferes with electrical devices. Since platform 9 3/4 is a pretty large magic site, I'm wondering how this affects the power on all the other platforms. Sali: Is it the entire site that's magical or is it just the entrance and whatever shielding is needed to hide the platform from muggles? If it doesn't take much magic to hide the site then it might not interfere. And how much magic is needed before it starts to interfere with electricity on a large scale? Hogwarts we know causes problems. Does 12 Grimmauld Place? I can't check my books to see if it mentions street lights working/not working in the vicinity. I start to wonder how often platform 9 3/4 is used. If it does interfere badly but is only used twice a year, it would be easier for problems to go unnoticed. Sali, now wondering if the problems that the British rail system has can be due to the Hogwarts express rather than leaves on the line or the wrong kind of snow. From mros at xs4all.nl Wed Jan 9 12:33:01 2008 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:33:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Explain This Passage Message-ID: <25564.132.229.183.139.1199881981.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> No: HPFGUIDX 180498 >> lizzyben wrote: >> > Another oddity, to me, is that while the text seems to approve of >> Muggleborn/Wizard marriages, it seems to look down on Muggle/Wizard >> marriages. After all, the only two we hear about are totally >> dysfunctional & poisonous. So, it's not very approving of >> relationships between people of different cultures. >> > > Susan: > Sorry, am I missing something? > > What about Lily Evans and James Potter? > Marion: Lily Evans is a muggleborn, not a muggle. She is reared and indoctrinated in wizard culture since age eleven. Tobias Snape is a muggle. Tom Riddle senior is a muggle. The marriage between James and Lily was the marriage between two wizards. The marriages between Meriope and Tom and between Eileen and Toby were marriages between a witch and a muggle. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 14:08:48 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:08:48 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180499 > >>revaunchanistx: > > What? Did you miss Harry and Draco's meeting in Madam > > Malkin's... > >>Betsy Hp: > > Oh, that's the scene where I first fell in *love* with Draco. > > > >>Alla: > Well, the initial argument was that you spotted right away that > Harry was prejudiced to Draco, no? Betsy Hp: No, it wasn't actually. I stated I spotted the prejudice theme (or thought I did, since it obviously wasn't there and I was merely projecting *g*) with Hagrid's statement that all the bad wizards came from Slytherin and Harry refusing to shake Draco's hand on the train. I think revaunchanistx was merely trying to remind me that we were all supposed to hate tiny little Draco based on this scene. Which I suppose we probably were. But it didn't work for me because I totally got where Draco was coming from (I understood Harry's stiffness, too) and so I sympathized. (Geoff's view of the scene, described upthread, is how I saw it too.) And after getting to know Hagrid a bit better, the scene became even more amusing because everything Draco said about him was true. He *was* a type of servant (groundskeeper) and he did get drunk, and he did do magicial stuff that went wrong. (But that's a sort of by the by. Couldn't resist the chance to dig at Hagrid. *g*) Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 14:18:12 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:18:12 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180500 > > >>Alla: > > Well, the initial argument was that you spotted right away that > > Harry was prejudiced to Draco, no? > > Betsy Hp: > No, it wasn't actually. I stated I spotted the prejudice theme (or > thought I did, since it obviously wasn't there and I was merely > projecting *g*) Alla: Yes, I think so too. LOL. Betsy: with Hagrid's statement that all the bad wizards came > from Slytherin and Harry refusing to shake Draco's hand on the train. Alla: So wait what did I misunderstand then? You did saw prejudice in Harry's refusing to shake Draco's hand as you just wrote? And I am asking what was prejudicial here? Draco insulted Harry's friends and talked down about Muggleborns and Harry disliked him because of that. Betsy: > I think revaunchanistx was merely trying to remind me that we were > all supposed to hate tiny little Draco based on this scene. Which I > suppose we probably were. But it didn't work for me because I > totally got where Draco was coming from (I understood Harry's > stiffness, too) and so I sympathized. (Geoff's view of the scene, > described upthread, is how I saw it too.) Alla: I do not think she was but I cannot speak for her and I know that I was not speaking about it even if I totally could not stand him after his tirade about Hagrid. I am only asking what part of Harry's dislike of Draco was prejudicial based on what Draco said. If you do not think that Harry's initial dislike of Draco was based on prejudice, could you please clarify that? Thanks. Alla From va32h at comcast.net Wed Jan 9 14:19:41 2008 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:19:41 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: <2795713f0801082255oe38a93aidc1bb0f773e4ec3b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180501 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > I get your point. Really, I do. But I will say this. Currently, I >have 3 > jobs. At the same time. So I don't understand why Ron couldn't have >more han one job concurrently. va32h: I don't think you are getting my point. As I said, it doesn't matter what we do in real life. It matters what characters in the HP world do, and no character has been shown to juggle multiple jobs and family. JKR's answer is not consistent with what she's written in the seven books. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 14:23:26 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:23:26 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180502 > va32h: > > I don't think you are getting my point. As I said, it doesn't matter > what we do in real life. It matters what characters in the HP world > do, and no character has been shown to juggle multiple jobs and > family. JKR's answer is not consistent with what she's written in the > seven books. > Alla: I am actually with you about Ron, I think. I seriously doubt that JKR meant for him to have multiple jobs, otherwise she would have said so IMO. But we do see the character who has multiple jobs - Dumbledore. He is at least Headmaster and leader of Order of phoenix. Alla From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Jan 9 14:33:01 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 07:33:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control - It's All True References: <887933.2648.qm@web52711.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01be01c852cc$8a88db50$6501a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180504 List elves, please delete the last- it sent without any comments added- post! I didn't mean to sit "send"! > Carol wrote: <<>> > > Carol, wondering what the books would have been like if JKR had been > allowed to take her time and the editors had been less leery of > changing a single word from her pen or keyboard or pointing out > inconsistencies and requiring her to correct them > > ***Katie: > Forgive me the one-liner, as I iron my hands and beat my head against my > keyboard...BUT...the short answer is - They would have been much better > books, especially DH. Much, much better. Katie I wholeheartedly agree!!! I wonder if, some time into the future, if JKR will look at all these complaints the readers are giving and then be able to objectively edit her own material (or with a team) to produce an EDITED series- one with all the dates updates, the lunar cycle corrected, the correct summer constellation mentioned, the classrooms in the right places, and so forth, so that it reads without all the little inconsistencies that have given us so much room to comment on and speculate the reasons for the errors. Certainly, I would have waited a few more months for the last book, and would not have yelled at JKR if she said she needed extra time for editing to get it just right. We would have all benefited! Shelley From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 16:02:59 2008 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 08:02:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: <01be01c852cc$8a88db50$6501a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: <33301.45446.qm@web52703.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180505 k12listmomma wrote: > Carol wrote: <<>> > > Carol, wondering what the books would have been like if JKR had been > allowed to take her time and the editors had been less leery of > changing a single word from her pen or keyboard or pointing out > inconsistencies and requiring her to correct them > > ***Katie: > Forgive me the one-liner, as I iron my hands and beat my head against my > keyboard...BUT...the short answer is - They would have been much better > books, especially DH. Much, much better. Katie I wholeheartedly agree!!! I wonder if, some time into the future, if JKR will look at all these complaints the readers are giving and then be able to objectively edit her own material (or with a team) to produce an EDITED series- one with all the dates updates, the lunar cycle corrected, the correct summer constellation mentioned, the classrooms in the right places, and so forth, so that it reads without all the little inconsistencies that have given us so much room to comment on and speculate the reasons for the errors. Certainly, I would have waited a few more months for the last book, and would not have yelled at JKR if she said she needed extra time for editing to get it just right. We would have all benefited! Shelley ***Katie again: I would have been pleased as punch if we had waited another year for DH and it had been a book that I couldn't pick apart for flaws on every page! It's not a bad book - it's a badly edited book. It's a book that needed to be tweaked and corrected, and wasn't given the attention to detail that it needed. As for producing a corrected series...I highly doubt it. Usually when people produce a "director's cut" kind of thing, it's *longer* than the original! That's the last thing we need!I also think that at this point (and maybe her attitude will change later) she thinks the books are just peachy the way they are, and nothing really needs to be changed. I feel like she thinks all the inconsistencies are kind of funny. Of course, without all that stuff, would the books be too perfect, too put-together?? I wonder...sometimes things are best left imperfect. I think what bothers me is not that the books are imperfect, but that she refuses to acknowledge that they are. Just own it, JKR. : ) For DH, specifically, though...someone needs to edit that, and fast. : ) Katie . --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 17:23:47 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:23:47 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180506 > Alla: > > Well, the initial argument was that you spotted right away that Harry > was prejudiced to Draco, no? > > I say he was saying all prejudicial things to the core (spotting > prejudice and privilege - LOVE and will have to adopt this > expression, hehe). So, where do you get that Harry was prejudiced > towards Draco? I mean if you say he disliked Draco after his speeches > Harry's parents, Harry's first true friend and Harry's second true > friend, I will surely agree with you. > > Harry disliked Draco very much after he heard what Draco had to say > on the subject. > > What I am wondering is where you see prejudice in Harry's dislike of > Draco? Montavilla47: Hehe. Well, it isn't Prejudice so much as Pride, right? I'm headdesking right now because I never realized the Harry/Draco = Elizabeth/Darcy connection before. No wonder people slash Harry/Draco! I wonder if Jane Austen had produced Pride and Prejudice as a serial novel if people would have been outraged when Elizabeth got together with Darcy at the end instead of whatshisname. And if anyone would have written fanfics in which Darcy was conveniently killed off, or else shown to be a wife-beater.... From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 17:25:42 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:25:42 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180507 > >>Alla: > So wait what did I misunderstand then? You did saw prejudice in > Harry's refusing to shake Draco's hand as you just wrote? > And I am asking what was prejudicial here? Draco insulted Harry's > friends and talked down about Muggleborns and Harry disliked him > because of that. Betsy Hp: I'm at work, so I can't do a full on text evalutation, but IIRC, Draco entered Harry and Ron's compartment to attempt a reintroduction since he realized their first meeting was a failure. So it's a fairly neutral Draco at this point. But Harry's already decided he doesn't like him, and part of that is from Hagrid's earlier statement about Slytherin. I'll also point out that the first attack in this scene (IIRC) came from Ron laughing at Draco. Anyway, there were a lot of Romeo/Juliet sort of things going on where it seemed apparent to me that the history of the WW was affecting both boys. I didn't expect Harry to behave any differently of course. He was an eleven year old child. I'm highly unimpressed, however, that the series ended without those deeper rifts being examined at all. > >>Alla: > If you do not think that Harry's initial dislike of Draco was based > on prejudice, could you please clarify that? Betsy Hp: Sorry, I thought I had. To restate: I don't think Harry disliked Draco because of WW prejudices in their first meeting. That came later when Hagrid explained that Harry's initial reaction to Draco was correct. I'd say Harry disliked Draco because Draco was too confident. A boy who knew that world and had parents who loved him was too much for Harry, who was feeling quite weak and insecure at the time. Actually, it's a fairly classic recruitment scenario Harry found himself in. It's no wonder he bought Hagrid's filth hook, line, and sinker. The Depression era was huge for the KKK. Betsy Hp From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 17:44:12 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:44:12 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180508 > va32h: > It doesn't matter how many jobs I've had or you've had. In JKR's > fictional world - do the characters ever change jobs? With the > exception of Arthur's promotion (which is not a change of job, since > he still works for the Ministry), no. zgirnius: We do not know the jobs of Hogwarts teachers before they become Hogwarts teachers, but we may presume they have them. Riddle is told by the sympathetic Headmaster Dippet to get some experience before applying again for the DADA position. Trelawney and Snape are both out of school for some time before they get their jobs, and neither seems to be a James Potter, who does not need to work for a living. Moody is an Auror before he becomes a teacher. Lockhart, a bestselling author. There is also reason to believe Ministers of Magic do not all come from the Ministry (DD was offered the job). In fact, DD seems to be a guy who has more than one job. "Chief Warlock, etc.", and Headmaster at Hogwarts. At least one of Sluggie's proteges moves from working in an industry, to establishing their own business. Quidditch players presumably do something when they get too old to play - Ludo proves that retirement seems to happen at comparable ages to those seen in Muggle sports. The candy cart lady on the train is an interesting example - you don't suppose working two days a year is all she does, do you? The central characters, of course, are school-aged kids, so we don't get a lot of detail about any of this, but I see enough hints to find the idea of two jobs, held either in sequence or simultaneously, quite plausible. > va32h: > Call me presumptuous (I'm sure someone will), but I think a dedicated > reader's thoughtful consideration trumps the creatrix's off-the-cuff > remark. zgirnius: This I agree with. (In fact, for me it trumps everything short of me and Rowling sitting down for coffee and discussion, and her providing a convincing explanation. ) But Ron, of all the Weasley kids, strikes me as the most likely to give poor George a hand at WWW, now that he is without Fred and doubtless feeling short-handed. Both because of his desire for wealth (WWW is a serious money-making operation), and because he seems to be the least likely to be serious about whatever else he may have wanted to do. The older brothers all have excellent careers in which they seem very invested, and I always picked Ginny for a Quidditch player. I don't think Ron was very serious about being an Auror, anyway. He would like the idea of working with Harry, and (in discussing it) would resent Hermione's implication that he lacks the academic credentials, but I never got the impression it was his passion, something he would pursue eve if Harry changed his mind. Harry seemed more truly interested in the job. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 18:05:33 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:05:33 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180509 va32h: > > I don't think you are getting my point. As I said, it doesn't matter what we do in real life. It matters what characters in the HP world do, and no character has been shown to juggle multiple jobs and family. JKR's answer is not consistent with what she's written in the seven books. > Carol responds: We do have at least one character who canonically changed jobs, Ludo ("i can't keep getting hit by Bludgers all my life") Bagman, who (despite Crouch Sr.'s opposition and his little run-in with the law for giving information to Rookwood) switched from being a Beater for the Wimbourne Wasps to being Head of the Department of Magical Sports at the MoM. (He may have had a more junior MoM position in between.) Uncanonically, Ginny does the same thing, changing from professional Quidditch player to a sports reporter. And, of course, a number of people switch positions or are promoted within their various organizations (MoM, Hogwarts), but that isn't really changing jobs in the sense you're talking about. One reason why so few people in the WW change jobs seems to be that so few opportunities are available. If you're not employed by the MoM, St. Mungo's, the Daily Prophet, Gringotts, or Hogwarts, you pretty much have to open your own business, such as as shop or pub, or be a store clerk. A few people apparently write books or perform in bands, but those people are self-employed. Personally, I prefer to think that George married the pretty Muggle girl and ran Weasley's Wizarding Wheezes by himself or with her (Muggle integration into the WW, yea!). It doesn't feel right to me for George to marry Fred's girlfriend, making George a Fred-substitute in Angelina's mind. It makes perfect sense (to me) for his friend Lee to marry Angelina, whose looks and Quidditch performance he's always praising, and became a Quidditch announcer (JMO--no canon support for that idea but it's in character for him). I also think that Ron and Harry returned to school, went through Auror training, and became Aurors as they planned. Their experiences hunting and destroying Horcruxes, aided by Harry's no-longer-extant soul bit, and in the Battle of Hogwarts, would not, IMO, qualify kids who couldn't even use nonverbal DADA spells to be Aurors. I know that's not what JKR said in her recent interviews, but, IMO, interviews aren't canon, and until it's in print, she's free to change her mind and we readers can give the characters the futures that seem to us to be consistent with canon. (Others are free, of course, to accept anything JKR says in interviews and on her website as the absolute, definitive truth--including that thirteen-year-old father in the Black Family Tree.) Carol, who thinks that Snape would have made the greatest Auror ever if only he'd had that opportunity From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 18:09:11 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:09:11 -0000 Subject: That "Love" thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180510 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Lily never loved Snape: she never allowed herself to see him. > >>colebiancardi: > > So, what was I getting at? Oh yeah Did Lily love Snape? Well, > yes, but platonically. I think based on the second quote of JKR's, > that Lily would have recoiled in horror if she knew the deep > feelings that Snape had for her. > just my 2 knuts Betsy Hp: I don't know, recoiling in horror doesn't seem like the response of a loving friend. I *do* think Lily would have recoiled, but that's because, deep down, Lily was a bit repulsed by Snape, I think. To borrow a phrase, he was beneath her. There's nothing of love in that, platonic or otherwise. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 18:16:48 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:16:48 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180511 > Betsy Hp: > I'm at work, so I can't do a full on text evaluation, but IIRC, > Draco entered Harry and Ron's compartment to attempt a reintroduction > since he realized their first meeting was a failure. So it's a > fairly neutral Draco at this point. But Harry's already decided he > doesn't like him, and part of that is from Hagrid's earlier statement > about Slytherin. I'll also point out that the first attack in this > scene (IIRC) came from Ron laughing at Draco. Alla: And how do we know that Harry does not like Draco because of Hagrid's statement about Slytherin if Draco has not sorted to Slytherin yet? I mean, because again IF he does not like Draco because of that at this point, it is prejudice, I agree with you. I mean I would agree because Harry did not witness the pureblood ideology yet, not because there is anything attractive in it. But before the compartment meeting Harry listened to Draco's filth **twice** and of course formed his opinion already. Where do you see neutral Draco, I have no idea. I mean, I cannot compare Ron's laughing to what Draco said, but okay, if it was their first meeting, I could at least understand. Except it was not and Draco showed his mindset already. Betsy Hp: > Anyway, there were a lot of Romeo/Juliet sort of things going on > where it seemed apparent to me that the history of the WW was > affecting both boys. I didn't expect Harry to behave any differently > of course. He was an eleven year old child. Alla: How would you expect Harry to behave then if he was not eleven year old child? Would you expect him to embrace Draco after the things he said about Hagrid and muggleborns folks? You know the bad kind of wizards, the lower kind? I am in my thirties; I would tell you that I would not BOTHERED to deal with the person who would want to make friends with me by insulting my friend and my heritage. And when I say with the person who wants to make friends with me, I am giving Draco a HUGE benefit of the doubt, because I do not see how his behavior can be construed as making friends with Harry. I mean, it can be, but Harry is not a legilimency expert and what Draco says is snobbish and filthy as far as I am concerned. So, again, I am at loss as to what was wrong with Harry's behavior. Not why you can understand his behavior, but how else he was supposed to behave as any decent normal kid would. IMO of course. > Betsy Hp: > Sorry, I thought I had. To restate: I don't think Harry disliked > Draco because of WW prejudices in their first meeting. That came > later when Hagrid explained that Harry's initial reaction to Draco > was correct. Alla: Okay. Betsy Hp: I'd say Harry disliked Draco because Draco was too > confident. A boy who knew that world and had parents who loved him > was too much for Harry, who was feeling quite weak and insecure at > the time. Alla: So you think Draco's insults have nothing to do with Harry's dislike? Basically because Draco was displaying his confident posture, that was the reason? Okay. Betsy Hp: Actually, it's a fairly classic recruitment scenario Harry > found him in. It's no wonder he bought Hagrid's filth hook, > line, and sinker. The Depression era was huge for the KKK. Alla: I am happy that he did not buy Draco's filth personally. Montavilla47: Hehe. Well, it isn't Prejudice so much as Pride, right? I'm headdesking right now because I never realized the Harry/Draco = Elizabeth/Darcy connection before. No wonder people slash Harry/Draco! I wonder if Jane Austen had produced Pride and Prejudice as a serial novel if people would have been outraged when Elizabeth got together with Darcy at the end instead of whatshisname. And if anyone would have written fanfics in which Darcy was conveniently killed off, or else shown to be a wife-beater.... Alla: Yeah, I know people slash Harry/Draco, I read and enjoyed some stories myself. What I am disagreeing with is that some resemblance to this scenario somehow just had to come true in the books. And this is a general remark, but nowhere in the books had I seen that Draco and Harry were supposed to become best friends or something. I am not even talking about slash, LOL. Heeee, and the difference I see between Elisabeth/Darcy is of course that Darcy is revealed as honorable man, while Draco is not, not to the same degree at least IMO. I mean, does it have to be that when hero meets somebody who is bad, this guy just has to become his best friend? This is not a remark to you Montavilla, it is to some extent reply to Betsy, but more of her past arguments, not even this one, I think. Can the main character meet someone whom he thinks is very bad and it turns out he is just not as bad, but bad enough? Does life always gives us these big reversals of human nature? Yeah, it is dramatic when it happens in literature, no I do not think it always has to happen in literature. No, I do not think anybody wrote that it should always happen. I am just going on tangent. Yeah, I am pleased and happy that Draco did not turn out to have a heart of gold, why would he after growing up with Lucius? But he still loves his parents, sticks up by his friends, etc. I mean, where in the books people see the idea that Harry and Draco had to become friends, beats me. The fact that they met as enemies? Well, that's because Draco represents the wrong ideological position, truly wrong and Harry represents what is truly right IMO. So no wonder they became an enemies. The fact that Harry said he would never be friends with Draco, well why cannot it be taken for what it was? That he never will be. I mean we have remark about Snape adopting Harry too, did he ever? Since they are kids, they indeed see only parts of themselves, but Harry I think judged spot on the part of Draco that he got to witness, the disgusting part IMO. JMO, Alla From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Jan 9 18:18:00 2008 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:18:00 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180512 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Harry is a full-blood, and I acknowledge that term doesn't > appear in the books, but it best describes Harry's > situation. He has two magical parents, but on his mother's > side, he has no magical history. She, Lily, is the progeny > of muggles. But as is already noted, she is a fully magical > person. Harry, therefore, is the progeny of two magical > people making him fully magical. > Allie: I wonder what Harry and Ginny's children would be considered. Harry, being "half-blood," and Ginny being "pureblood," would that make them 3/4 bloods? :) For how many generations must one's parents be magical before one is considered pureblood? Even most muggleborn children will marry witches/wizards (since they will be surrounded by them for most of their lives), so theoretically the number of "Fullbloods" will be GROWING, even if the number of "Purebloods" is shrinking. Allie Who likes Steve's new term From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Jan 8 20:21:14 2008 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:21:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's lesson on prejudice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4783DB3A.7050308@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180513 Elizabeth Snape wrote: > Oh, of course HRH and Neville deserved to be awarded those points! > Who on earth has ever argued against it? No one that I can recall. > > What I found disturbing about that scene in PS/SS was the Slytherin > flags on display indicating they had definitely won the house cup and > *then* DD awards the points, claps his hands, "We need a change of > decoration" and the pennants change to Gryffindor. Sounds like > deliberate humilation to me. > Bart: There was an episode of CHEERS which had a similar idea, with a better ending. I'm going to word this so that those unfamiliar with the show will understand it. One of the lead characters was a bartender/owner who also happened to be quite handsome and a pick-up artist. A more temporary character was a Frenchman with similar characteristics. They make a bet as to who could get the most women's phone numbers in a single night; the stakes being bragging rights. The bartender needs just one phone number to win, when his target reveals that she has been badly injured by men who were just using her. The bartender has an uncharacteristic change of heart, and refuses to take advantage of the woman, losing the contest. The woman then reveals it was a test, which he passed, and she and two of her equally beautiful friends wanted to have sex with him as a reward. He leaves, arm in arm with the 3 beautiful women, telling the Frenchman, "Oh, and as for that silly little bet we had; you win!" Getting back to PS/SS, Harry realizes that real life is more important than a house cup. However, as the house cups continue to be a plot point, rather than having Slytherin win the House Cup with acknowledgment that the Gryffindor Four had done something much more impressive, JKR had Gryffindor win the House Cup as well. After all, those nasty snobbish Slytherins DESERVE IT! (am I the only other person who noticed a similar problem in Disney's HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL, where the message seemed to be, "Just because you are already a winner doesn't mean that you can't stop others from being winners, too!") Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Jan 8 20:35:57 2008 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:35:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4783DEAD.6040303@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180514 Steve wrote: > I think there is an element of context here that you are > ignoring. Regarding Ron and his job, in the right context > BOTH can be true. I mean, you've never heard of anyone having > a second part-time job? Ron probably went to work as an Auror > just like Harry. In fact, I think JKR said virtually everyone > who was instrumental in fighting Voldemort, continued to > work as Aurors until the job was done and the last DE was > rounded up. Bart: Especially based on the business with the Elder Wand, I still think that it would make sense for Harry and Ron to have worked with the Aurors on a consulting basis, rather than being field agents, with Harry later getting into the administrative side of things as an avocation. Bart From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 21:16:48 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:16:48 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180515 > Montavilla47: > Hehe. Well, it isn't Prejudice so much as Pride, right? I'm headdesking > right now because I never realized the Harry/Draco = Elizabeth/Darcy > connection before. > > No wonder people slash Harry/Draco! > > I wonder if Jane Austen had produced Pride and Prejudice as a > serial novel if people would have been outraged when Elizabeth > got together with Darcy at the end instead of whatshisname. > > And if anyone would have written fanfics in which Darcy was > conveniently killed off, or else shown to be a wife-beater.... a_svirn: Yeah, but Darcy and Elisabeth had each of them some of both, whereas in this case all prejudice seems to be on Draco's side and all pride on Harry's ... As for fanfics, they not only write them, but even publish and sell them openly in the bookstores. I saw with my own disbelieving eyes: "Mr Darcy Takes a Wife" (with a rather suggestive picture on the front cover) and another one, something about Mr Darcy's daughters. a_svirn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 21:36:50 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:36:50 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180516 Allie: > > I wonder what Harry and Ginny's children would be considered. > Harry, being "half-blood," and Ginny being "pureblood," would that > make them 3/4 bloods? :) For how many generations must one's > parents be magical before one is considered pureblood? > > Even most muggleborn children will marry witches/wizards (since they > will be surrounded by them for most of their lives), so > theoretically the number of "Fullbloods" will be GROWING, even if > the number of "Purebloods" is shrinking. > > Allie > Who likes Steve's new term > Carol responds: Steve's term isn't new. He's been proposing it for years. Unfortunately, however sensible and logical "full-blood" may be, it's not canonical. Neither is "3/4 blood" or any similar term. Wizards, not being, for the most part, particularly logical (as Hermione points out when she solves Snape's logic puzzle in SS/PS), don't think in those terms. Slughorn's reference to chromosomes to the contrary, they don't think in terms of genes, either. It's all "blood." So people either have Wizard blood or they don't. So here's what we know we have, per canon: A Muggle (no Wizarding blood) A Squib (Wizarding blood through at least one parent but no magical powers other than being able to communicate with cats and see Hogwarts) A Muggle-born (a Witch or Wizard with two Muggle parents and, by implication, four Muggle grandparents, IOW, no Wizard blood and therefore, the same as a Muggle to pure-blood supremacists) A Pure-blood (a Witch or Wizard with no known, or at least no acknowledged, Muggle ancestors) A Half-Blood (a Witch or Wizard with one Muggle or Muggle-born parent and one Pure-blood parent) That, of course, raises the question you raised, what to call the child of a Pure-blood and a Half-blood, as well as the child of a Muggle-born and a Half-blood. I think, though I can't be sure, that Wizards in general (whether or not they believe in pure-blood supremacy) would consider a Half-Blood to have Wizarding blood and therefore would not count that person as a Muggle in the bloodline. However, that person's Muggle or Muggle-born parent would count as a Muggle grandparent, preventing the child of a Half-Blood and a Pure-blood from being considered a Pure-Blood himself or herself. However, if that child were to marry a pure-blood, his or her children could count themselves as pure-bloods if they were so inclined because they would have no Muggle )or Muggle-born) grandparents. Case in point, Albus Severus. He has one "Muggle" grandparent, Lily (no Wizarding blood despite her magical powers), so he counts as a Half-Blood (not subject to the prejudice a Muggle-born might suffer, but not "one of us" in the pure-bloods' view, either). However, suppose that he marries a pure-blood (if any pure-blood girls are left after JKR's purge). That child's grandparents would be Harry (a Half-Blood but counted as a Wizard, unlike his "Muggle" mother) and Ginny, a pure-blood, plus two unknown pure-bloods on the mother's side. I doubt that even the Malfoys would deny that child pure-blood status. He'd probably be regarded as restoring the Potters' pure-blood status. Ron's and Hermione's kids, of course, are Half-Bloods, and something similar would occur if Rose married Scorpius Malfoy. (Who knows? Draco might even approve such a marriage given the shortage of Half-Blood wives available for Scorpius.) Their children would have one Muggle grandparent, Hermione, preventing them from being pure-bloods themselves, but if those children married pure-bloods, *their* children (Ron's and Hermione's great-grandchildren) could, theoretically, be counted as pure-bloods. Either that, or there won't be any pure-bloods left because no one will qualify, in which case the terms may fall into disuse (and no one that I know of would consider that a bad thing). As for the child of a Muggle-born and a Half-Blood (the children Harry and Hermione would have had if they'd married each other, for example), we're back to counting a Muggle-borns as "Muggles" for the purposes of bloodlines. Those children would have had *three* Muggle or "Muggle," in Lily's case) grandparents, and would be at best Half-Bloods in the eyes of pure-blood supremacists (though they could not count as Muggle-borns because of Harry's pure-blood father). If two Muggle-borns married, both would count as "Muggles" because neither had any Wizard blood and their children would have four Muggle grandparents, so, for the purposes of pure-blood genealogy, the children would also be Muggle-borns. Probably, not even the most prejudiced Witch or Wizard would refer to them that way to their faces, however, since they would grow up in the WW and know what Draco calls "our ways." They would be considered unsuitable marriage partners for the scions of some pure-blood families but would probably suffer no more prejudice than Half-Bloods in general. Carol, just working out what JKR didn't specify and not sure that JKR would agree with her answer From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 9 21:36:55 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:36:55 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice In-Reply-To: <4783DB3A.7050308@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180517 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Elizabeth Snape wrote: > > Oh, of course HRH and Neville deserved to be awarded those points! > > Who on earth has ever argued against it? No one that I can recall. > > > > What I found disturbing about that scene in PS/SS was the Slytherin > > flags on display indicating they had definitely won the house cup and > > *then* DD awards the points, claps his hands, "We need a change of > > decoration" and the pennants change to Gryffindor. Sounds like > > deliberate humilation to me. > > > > Bart: > Getting back to PS/SS, Harry realizes that real life is more important > than a house cup. However, as the house cups continue to be a plot > point, rather than having Slytherin win the House Cup with > acknowledgment that the Gryffindor Four had done something much more > impressive, JKR had Gryffindor win the House Cup as well. After all, > those nasty snobbish Slytherins DESERVE IT! Geoff: I wrote a post recently in which I expressed concern about this scene and, on mulling it over further, I seem to see a subtext in it. I remarked that McGonagall had been very tight-fisted in giving house points after the troll incident, giving five each to Harry and Ron and then docking five from Hermione which meant that Harry and Ron's heroics had only gained Gryffindor a measly five extra. I then remembered McGonagall's actions over the Norbert incident: '"All three of you will receive detentions - yes, you too, Mr.Longbottom, nothing gives you the right to walk around school at night, especially these days, it's very dangerous - and fifty points will be taken from Gryffindor." "Fifty?" Harry gasped - they would lose the lead, the lead he'd won in the last Quidditch match. "Fifty points each," said Professor McGonagall, breathing heavily through her long pointed nose. "Professor - please -" "You can't-" "Don't tell me what I can and can't do, Potter..."' (PS, "The Forbidden Forest", p.178 UK edition) In comparison with the award of points over the troll incident, Professor McGonagall's action is grossly out of balance. And add to that her previous action on the same evening: 'A lamp flared. Professor McGonagall, in a tartan dressing-gown and a hairnet, had Malfoy by the ear. "Detention!" she shouted, "And twenty points from Slytherin!"' {PS, "Norbert the Norwegian Ridgeback", p.175 UK edition) I get the impression that the good Professor is not considering whether her rewards and demerits are correctly matched to the actions. I then began to wonder if perhaps Professor Dumbledore had noticed the alarmingly sharp downturn in Gryffindor points and raised the matter with McGonagall. And also if, by some means, he learned of Neville's attempt to stop the Trio leaving the Common Room. Because the shortfall on points between Slytherin and Gryffindor was 160 - almost exactly the amount that Harry, Neville and Hermione had lost on that night. And whether, without openly criticising Professor McGonagall, he used the events involving the Philosopher's Stone as a spring board to negate the effect of the punishment. I would have been happier if he had just done that which would have put Gryffindor as a close second rather than shoving them past their rivals and ratcheting up the dislike between the two houses because I can visualise the insults flying between the two sets of students afterwards with the possibly valid accusation of "teacher's pet" being flung at the Gryffs. Otherwise, I find Dumbledore's actions very strange for someone who ought to understand the eleven year-old mind better. Or am I becoming a conspiracy theorist? From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 9 21:48:22 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:48:22 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180518 Chapter Discussions: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 11, The Bribe Harry expects Kreacher to return at once with Mundungus and gets discouraged when nightfall comes without him. Moldy bread, unsuccessfully Transfigured by Hermione, does not help. Two days later, two cloaked men appear outside, gazing in the direction of the house. The Trio guess that these are Death Eaters. There has been no further word from any of the Order and the strain begins to tell. Ron clicks the Deluminator on and off, infuriating Hermione who is trying to read. Fed up with the bickering, Harry heads downstairs. Hearing sounds from the front door, Harry draws his wand as a cloaked figure edges into the hall. The visitor says the magic words and the dust figure explodes, making it impossible for Harry to make out who the newcomer is. Harry's shout of "Don't move" sets off the portrait of Mrs. Black. Drawn by her screams, Ron and Hermione come crashing downstairs to join Harry. Lupin names himself. Ron and Hermione lower their wands at once but Harry is more cautious. Lupin moves into the light and rattles off a few identifying facts. Satisfied, Harry lowers his wand. Lupin commends Harry for his caution and chides the other two for being too quick to lower their defenses. Remus looks exhausted, but pleased to see them. He explains that he had to apparate very carefully onto the top step to avoid being seen. DE's are keeping watch on every location associated with the Order. Lupin says he would have come sooner, but there's been a DE tailing him. He's very disturbed to hear that the DE's found Harry at Tottenham Court Road. He doesn't believe the trace could possibly be still active, or the DE's would know that Harry was at Grimmauld Place. About a dozen DE's or Ministry people (there's no difference any more, Lupin says) showed up at the wedding, but thanks to Kingsley's warning most of the guests had escaped. The Trio are both shocked and gratified to hear that Scrimgeour went to his death refusing, despite torture, to give Harry away. Remus and others were interrogated for hours, but the DE's didn't know that Harry had been at the wedding. At the same time the DE's forced their way into every Order connected house in the country, despite all the defensive spells. Tonks's parents were cruciated since it was known that Harry had been there, but they're ok. Harry learns that he is wanted in regard to Dumbledore's death. Effectively Voldemort is now the Minister of Magic, though the post is officially held by the Imperius'ed Thicknesse. Many people have deduced what has happened, but they are afraid to do more than whisper about it, not knowing whom to trust. The Ministry is requiring everyone who cannot prove they have at least one close wizarding relative to register. Muggleborns are being rounded up. Attendance at Hogwarts is now compulsory, and all entrants must establish their blood status. Harry is sickened but cannot find words to express his horror. Lupin then turns to Harry's mission. He offers the Trio his help. Harry's not sure how they could possibly conceal what they're doing with Lupin by them night and day. Hermione's concern is different: "But what about Tonks?" Tonks is pregnant. The Trio congratulate Lupin, who smiles artificially and asks if the Trio will accept his offer. After confirming that Lupin is indeed proposing to leave his wife with her parents and come adventuring with the three of them, Harry says that James would have wanted to know why Lupin wasn't sticking with his own kid. Ron, Hermione and Lupin are shocked at Harry's tone. Lupin's attempts to explain why his wife and child will be better off this way only enrage Harry further. Harry accuses Lupin of feeling a bit of a daredevil, of wanting to step into Sirius's shoes, and finally of being a coward. Lupin draws his wand so fast that Harry can barely reach for his own before Lupin blasts him into the kitchen wall. Exit Lupin. Broken images surge through Harry's mind: the deaths of Sirius, Dumbledore and Lily. "Parents," says Harry "shouldn't leave their kids unless -- unless they've got to. " But then he remembers how Lupin comforted him after his troubling vision in the pensieve and Harry feels a surge of remorse. He admits he shouldn't have called Lupin a coward but feels if Lupin goes back to Tonks it will have been worth it. Harry then reads about Dumbledore's family in the newspaper Lupin left behind. The mystery of Ariana is introduced, with the suspicion that her family concealed her because she was a Squib. Learning that Dumbledore's family also lived in Godric's Hollow rekindles Harry's desire to go there. But just as he's about to ask Ron and Hermione about it, there's a deafening crack and Kreacher returns with Mundungus as his prisoner. When Harry questions him about thefts from the house, Mundungus reminds them that Sirius never cared for any of that junk, prompting Kreacher to hit him over the head with a saucepan. Mundungus explains that he no longer has the locket. A witch caught him selling magical artifacts without a license in Diagon Alley, but she took a fancy to the locket and let him go, keeping the locket for herself. Dung doesn't know who she was, but from his description it could only have been one person: Dolores Umbridge. Harry drops his wand in astonishment, accidentally setting Dung's eyebrows on fire. Hermione uses Aguamenti, drenching the unfortunate thief. Mundungus chokes and splutters, while the Trio, shocked by Dung's news, stare at one another and the scars on the back of Harry's hand seem to tingle. QUESTIONS: 1. It seems the DE's learned where the house must be and that it belongs to Harry, but not that it was once headquarters of the Order. Did you think this was a clue to Snape's true loyalties? Or did you think the tongue-tying curse was adequate to keep Snape from talking? 2. Does Harry's reaction to Scrimgeour's death hint at his reaction to learning the truth about Snape? 3. The DE's were able to force their way past the protections put on the other safe houses. Did you expect this and did it make you feel any differently about the value of the blood protection at Privet Drive? 4. Does the general mistrust in the wizarding community and the surveillance and torture of Order members go far enough to explain the lack of resistance to Voldemort's coup? 5. Harry accuses Lupin both of feeling a bit of a daredevil and of being a coward. What is Rowling saying about the relationship between recklessness and true bravery? 6. What do you think of Lupin's reasons for wanting to leave his family? Given earlier hints in canon that Lupin is an occlumens, is his apparent lack of feeling for Tonks only a pretense, or is he truly indifferent? 7. It is an axiom of political science that every new regulation creates an opportunity for graft. Did Scrimgeour's attempts to restrict the selling of magical devices (HBP ch 5) do more harm than good? 8. On a lighter note, I think this is at least the seventh time that canon refers to Umbridge as a hag. Could she actually be one? Pippin, with thanks to SSSusan for proofreading, NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jan 9 22:06:43 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:06:43 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180519 > Carol responds: > Steve's term isn't new. He's been proposing it for years. > Unfortunately, however sensible and logical "full-blood" may be, it's > not canonical. Neither is "3/4 blood" or any similar term. Wizards, > not being, for the most part, particularly logical (as Hermione points > out when she solves Snape's logic puzzle in SS/PS), don't think in > those terms. Slughorn's reference to chromosomes to the contrary, they > don't think in terms of genes, either. It's all "blood." So people > either have Wizard blood or they don't. > > So here's what we know we have, per canon: > > A Muggle (no Wizarding blood) > > A Squib (Wizarding blood through at least one parent but no magical > powers other than being able to communicate with cats and see Hogwarts) > > A Muggle-born (a Witch or Wizard with two Muggle parents and, by > implication, four Muggle grandparents, IOW, no Wizard blood and > therefore, the same as a Muggle to pure-blood supremacists) > > A Pure-blood (a Witch or Wizard with no known, or at least no > acknowledged, Muggle ancestors) > > A Half-Blood (a Witch or Wizard with one Muggle or Muggle-born parent > and one Pure-blood parent) > > That, of course, raises the question you raised, what to call the > child of a Pure-blood and a Half-blood, as well as the child of a > Muggle-born and a Half-blood. Magpie: Ernie Macmillan once counts himself a "Pureblood back 9 generations" or some such, so the impression I get is that as usual, it's fuzzy. You're Muggleborn if both your parents are Muggles. You're Halfblood if you have one Muggle or Muggleborn parent. But with Pure/Half it's also trickier. You're Pureblood if you've got no Muggle grandparents, but "Pureblood" sometimes seems to mean a class as well as a blood status. So it seems like the way it works out practically speaking is that there are Muggleborns, whose blood is an issue. Then there's Half-bloods who have an actual Muggle parent or grandparent who know what they are too. Then there are Purebloods who go back generations of all Wizards. And then there's everyone else, which makes up most Wizards. Wizards who aren't "Pureblood" in the way the Blacks might use the term (iow, belonging to one of the Old Pureblood families blah blah) and are therefore vaguely aware of themselves as being relatively Jonny- come-lately or at least "not special" without any specific Muggles to speak of. Iow, there's a big grey area between actual Half-blood with a Muggle parent or even grandparent and Pureblood in the Weasley sense. -m From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jan 9 19:25:12 2008 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:25:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47851F98.4060703@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180520 Carol wrote: > bboyminn wrote: > >> In fact, I think JKR said virtually everyone who was >> > instrumental in fighting Voldemort, continued to work as Aurors until > the job was done and the last DE was rounded up. > > Carol responds: > Yes, IIRC, she did say something like that in a recent Pottercast > segment (the transcript is on Leaky). Which raises the question of > what happened to the need for six NEWTs, including Potions, and three > subsequent years of training. Maybe they were deputized as temporary > junior Aurors, with the duty of searching out and helping to bring in > known DEs. But to admit them to the department untrained, and then to > have Harry become head of the department at twenty-seven all because > he used an Expelliarmus on Voldemort and was lucky enough not to die > from Voldemort's Expelliarmi because of a soul bit and a mix-up with > the Elder Wand? > Bart: I realize that it's a magical world, but I strongly suspect that if the Auror department relaxes its requirements based on field performance, nobody is going to get turned into a frog as a result. Every hear of "waiving the requirements"? Happens all the time in the armed forces during wartime, where performance on the battlefield will gain someone promotions that they would not normally be qualified to get. Of course, there's always my belief that Harry and Ron were consultants, rather than regular agents. Can you picture, "OK, you three have just overturned the coup which had taken over the ministry. As a reward, you can become police officers. We'll start you at the bottom." Carol: > Ergh. I'd rather believe that Harry and Ron returned to Hogwarts with > Hermione and *earned* their positions as Aurors with the proper > training. If Ron became an Auror at all, as both he and Harry > expressed the desire to do in the books. > Bart: Let's see now. Defeating a foe that all the forces of the Ministry could not is NOT, with all the forces of the overturned Ministry against them, plus a bunch of mercenaries, and, in the middle of this, successfully robbing Gringrotts of one of the enemy's secret weapons, considered to be "earning" their positions, but passing a few classes is? As engineers sometimes say, 1 + 1 = 3 for large values of "1". You certainly believe in large values for "earned". Bart [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 22:37:52 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:37:52 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: <47851F98.4060703@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180521 Carol earlier: > > Ergh. I'd rather believe that Harry and Ron returned to Hogwarts with Hermione and *earned* their positions as Aurors with the proper training. If Ron became an Auror at all, as both he and Harry expressed the desire to do in the books. > > > Bart: > Let's see now. Defeating a foe that all the forces of the Ministry could not is NOT, with all the forces of the overturned Ministry against them, plus a bunch of mercenaries, and, in the middle of this, successfully robbing Gringrotts of one of the enemy's secret weapons, considered to be "earning" their positions, but passing a few classes is? As engineers sometimes say, 1 + 1 = 3 for large values of "1". You certainly believe in large values for "earned". Carol responds: They didn't defeat the mercenaries. The mercenaries defeated them, robbing them of their tent and their wands along the way. Then Bellatrix defeated the mercenaries and Dobby rescued HRH and friends. With his help, Harry and Ron (not the injured Hermione) were able to retrieve wands that weren't their own (Wormtail's silver hand helping them out along the way). Not skill but luck, as always with Harry. As for robbing Gringotts, which nearly got them killed, they couldn't have done that without the help of a certain treacherous little goblin. They couldn't have destroyed the locket Horcrux without Snape's help (they managed to lose the Sword of Gryffindor in the robbery of the Lestrange vault), and none of it could have happened if Harry hadn't had the scar link to Voldemort's mind. Voldie himself wouldn't have died if if weren't for the Elder Wand. The shared drop of blood and the soul bit in Harry's scar also played into the outcome of the battle. I don't see where skill fit in, myself, only luck, daring, and coincidence. Also, of course, HRH were the only ones who knew about the Horcruxes, thanks to Dumbledore. I don't for a moment question HRH's courage, but courage alone couldn't defeat Voldemort or Snape could have done it long ago. Carol, who thinks that Harry would be wise to take Snape's advice ("ShuT your mouth and close your mind!") before he battles any skilled Death Eaters (but if he's fighting the likes of Crabbe Sr. and Goyle Sr., no such skill would be necessary) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 9 22:52:45 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:52:45 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180522 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Geoff: > > From my perspective, I think this is a case of six of one and half > a > > dozen of the other. The more I go back and read the initial > contacts > > between Draco and Harry, the more I see the results of their > > pre-conditioning. The more I lament the outcome. > > > > > > Alla: > > I snipped rather randomly, but I think I am replying to your other > points as well. Oh well, anybody can go upthread and read them :) > > The bottom line for me though is whether you (hypothetical you) can > find anything that you can LIKE in anything what Draco said to Harry > in that scene. > > I am not talking about Harry not knowing everything about Draco > (although truly even at the end of book 7 I cannot see anything very > likable about him, but that's just me), because of course he does > not know everything about him. > > My only point was very strong disagreement that Harry's INITIAL > dislike of Draco was based on prejudice, that's all. > > What I am trying to say is that I do not see any reason WHY Harry > would like Draco based on him badmouthing his friends. > > That's all I am saying - that Harry's initial dislike of Draco was > very understandable and very real thing, to me of course. Geoff: Alla, I deliberately avoided using the word "prejudice" anywhere in my post. The point I am making is that the boys' reactions is matched to what I might call their benchmark perceptions. They are applying the limited views they have garnered from their backgrounds to this situation and what happens is the result of their subconscious analysis. Harry has had the idea put nto his head that Slytherin=bad. Therefore, because Draco=Slytherin, Draco=bad, a perception which has been heightened by Draco's swaggering entrance and his attempt to impress Harry. Draco, on the other hand, can only judge events by the parameters which have been drilled into him. His peers are not as intelligent as he is so he is really only getting input from Lucius. I believe has seen little in the way of real love from his father and has to equate everything to the image he has of pureblood superiority. So the two boys are really hostages to their own conditioning and lack the experience or maturity to see through the barriers thay have each erected. Although, in the strict etymology of "prejudice", they have exhibited this trait, bearing in mind that in modern usage, prejudice is seen as viewing things in a derogatory and demeaning light - which is not all that the word can mean. It means to pre-judge, to come to a conclusion about someone or something without having the full facts with which to make a true judgement. And that could be positive. For example, I could look at a picture of, say, Barack Obama, and think "I like that guy" which would be drawing a conclusion from just his looks and not knowing anything else about him; that could be prejudice - in a positive sense. Disclaimer. I am not making any sort of political statement by my last sentence above. I could have used a Republican as an example. :-) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 23:03:43 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:03:43 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180523 > Geoff: > Alla, I deliberately avoided using the word "prejudice" anywhere in > my post. The point I am making is that the boys' reactions is matched > to what I might call their benchmark perceptions. They are applying > the limited views they have garnered from their backgrounds to this > situation and what happens is the result of their subconscious analysis. Alla: Oh, sorry. See was replying to the thread and did not realize that there was no word prejudice in your post, but then I do not think I disagree with you that much - as I said, sure they do not know everything about each other. > Harry has had the idea put nto his head that Slytherin=bad. Therefore, > because Draco=Slytherin, Draco=bad, a perception which has been > heightened by Draco's swaggering entrance and his attempt to > impress Harry. Alla: Well, again Draco is not in Slytherin yet, isn't he? I am only talking about their initial meetings before they were sorted. > Draco, on the other hand, can only judge events by the parameters > which have been drilled into him. His peers are not as intelligent as > he is so he is really only getting input from Lucius. I believe has > seen little in the way of real love from his father and has to equate > everything to the image he has of pureblood superiority. So the two > boys are really hostages to their own conditioning and lack the > experience or maturity to see through the barriers thay have each > erected. Alla: Well, sure. Kids can get bad ideas either from their parents or their peers. Draco got them from Lucius. I am not sure what this has to do with anything. But the point which I am still not getting and maybe I do disagree with you after all is what conditioning Harry has to overcome? I keep saying that I am not talking about Harry not knowing all parts of Draco's personality. I keep asking what exactly is wrong with his INITIAL dislike of Draco. Are you saying that had Harry not had this mysterious conditioning, he would have LIKED Draco's behavior? I truly do not understand this. > Although, in the strict etymology of "prejudice", they have exhibited > this trait, bearing in mind that in modern usage, prejudice is seen as > viewing things in a derogatory and demeaning light - which is not > all that the word can mean. It means to pre-judge, to come to a > conclusion about someone or something without having the full facts > with which to make a true judgement. Alla: What was the prejudgment of Draco then? It is not like Draco was silent and Harry decided that this kid is bad company, no? Did Harry decided that Draco does not love his parents? No, he did not, since nothing to this effect occurred yet. Harry judged Draco based on what he did, that's all. I mean, not judged, disliked him. Say Harry met Draco at the sorting for the first time and he heard Hagrid statement by that time and he then would decide - oh yes Slytherins are bad. Prejudice, no argument from me, but I just do not see how Harry could have liked Draco initially at all. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 23:08:15 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:08:15 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180524 Thanks for a great summary and stimulating questions, Pippin! > QUESTIONS: > 1. It seems the DE's learned where the house must be and that it belongs to Harry, but not > that it was once headquarters of the Order. Did you think this was a clue to Snape's true > loyalties? Or did you think the tongue-tying curse was adequate to keep Snape from > talking? a_svirn: I don't understand this tongue-tying thing at all, frankly. There wasn't any need for Snape to *talk* in order to reveal the secret. After all, Dumbledore revealed it to Harry in writing. > > 2. Does Harry's reaction to Scrimgeour's death hint at his reaction to learning the truth > about Snape? a_svirn: What reaction? He was briefly *gratified* as your very rightly termed it, and then moved onto the next subject. > 3. The DE's were able to force their way past the protections put on the other safe houses. > Did you expect this and did it make you feel any differently about the value of the blood > protection at Privet Drive? a_svirn: No, I didn't, and no, it didn't. The whole thing looks a bit sloppy to me. And even more so, after we learn later on about the possibility of Fidelius self-protection. Surely the Tonkses could have protected themselves the way the Weasleys did. > 4. Does the general mistrust in the wizarding community and the surveillance and torture > of Order members go far enough to explain the lack of resistance to Voldemort's coup? a_svirn: The similar things were known to happen in real life. And it is always *because* of surveillance and general persecution Resistance groups usually emerge. > 5. Harry accuses Lupin both of feeling a bit of a daredevil and of being a coward. What is > Rowling saying about the relationship between recklessness and true bravery? a_svirn: Nothing. Harry knows and we know that Lupin is neither a daredevil, no a coward. > 6. What do you think of Lupin's reasons for wanting to leave his family? Given earlier > hints in canon that Lupin is an occlumens, is his apparent lack of feeling for Tonks > only a pretense, or is he truly indifferent? a_svirn: I think his anguish was quite understandable. I am not sure about hints of his being an occlumens in canon, all I can recall, is the hints of his being legillimens. But either way it wouldn't have mattered, since Harry (through whose eyes we see him) is neither, and can only see what's on the surface. Though I, for one, didn't get the feeling that Lupin was "indifferent". He was so far from indifferent that he seemed a hairbreadth from a nervous breakdown. > 8. On a lighter note, I think this is at least the seventh time that canon refers to Umbridge > as a hag. Could she actually be one? a_svirn: Of course, she is! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 23:13:48 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:13:48 -0000 Subject: Electricity & magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180525 --- "Barry" wrote: > > I've been informed on this site that magic interferes with > electrical devices. Since platform 9 3/4 is a pretty large > magic site, I'm wondering how this affects the power on all > the other platforms. > > Barry > bboyminn: I think JKR's statements regarding this, was that HIGH concentrations of magic interfere with electrical devices. Meaning that kids could not bring anything electronic to Hogwarts; no cell phones, I-Pods, radios, computers, etc.... This was a statement made specifically with regard to Hogwarts. Consider that hundreds of hormone driven magical kids are trapped at Hogwarts for month at a time, then factor in all the magical enhantments protecting Hogwarts, then add Hogsmead, and the concentration of magic is pretty high. Platform 9-3/4 is deserted most of the time. Twice a year, a group of people gather to take the train to/from Hogwarts. On those day, it could be that radio, TV, and cell phone reception are bad, and that the train stations computers are a bit finicky, but no indication that it is enough to shut the station down. I've always speculated that within Diagon Alley, simple electric and electronic device would work somewhat and cell phone reception would very spotty at best. Magic would interfer, but it wouldn't absolutely block. The same is true at the Black House, I expect the neighbors experience bad cell and TV/Radio reception, but it is not so intense that they can attribute it to a specific cause. So, it is the huge concentration of magic at Hogwarts that blocks all electrical and electronic devices, in all other places, it doesn't block, it merely annoys the electronics. Note that both the Ministry of Magic and St. Mungo's are right in downtown London. The concentration of magic at those location can't be as intense. Also, keep in mind that the Ministry is underground. That could act to shield the magic. Just a guess. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 23:49:26 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:49:26 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180526 > Chapter Discussions: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 11, The Bribe Carol: Thanks for a delightful summary that made me chuckle a couple of times. Now what could have made you volunteer for this particular chapter? BTW, I couldn't figure out for the longest time who the "old woman" was in the illustration heading this chapter in the Scholastic edition. It couldn't be Bathilda, who belongs to a later chapter. Finally, I realized that it's supposed to be Lupin. (Come on, now. He may be prematurely grey and lined, but JKR refers to his "young face" in both PoA and OoP. Oh, well. Mary Grandpre's Snape, especially in OoP, comes nowhere near my view of him, either. Happy birthday, Sevvie!) > > QUESTIONS: > 1. It seems the DE's learned where the house must be and that it belongs to Harry, but not that it was once headquarters of the Order. Did you think this was a clue to Snape's true loyalties? Or did you think the tongue-tying curse was adequate to keep Snape from talking? Carol: I was sure that it was a clue to Snape's loyalties (though I confess to moments of doubt elsewhere in the book). I thought that, if anything, he would use the tongue-tying curse as a cover for not telling LV about the HQ's location (assuming that LV questioned him about the Fidelius Charm's still being in effect). It still seems unlikely that Bellatrix and Narcissa wouldn't have figured it out on their own by now, but I'll just suspend my disbelief on that point. > > 2. Does Harry's reaction to Scrimgeour's death hint at his reaction to learning the truth about Snape? Carol: foreshadow it, you mean? Maybe. So far, he's the third person in the book (counting Kreacher as a person) who isn't as bad as Harry thought he was, Dudley being the first. But Harry puts Scrimgeour, who was never particularly important in his life, out of his thoughts much more quickly than he can do with Snape, who seemed like more of an antagonist and yet did a lot more to protect him and help to defeat Voldemort than Scrimgeour did (which is not to disparage Scrimgeour in any way; I always thought it was unfortunate the he and Harry couldn't trust each other and work together. I also think it's unfortunate that Scrimgeour had to die, but JKR wanted the MoM to fall, with no competent adults fighting the DEs while Harry is Horcrux hunting.) > > 3. The DE's were able to force their way past the protections put on the other safe houses. Did you expect this and did it make you feel any differently about the value of the blood protection at Privet Drive? > Carol: I didn't expect it at all. It doesn't say much for the Aurors that the DEs and their Ministry allies got past their protections, which evidently didn't include any Fidelius Charms. And yet those protections were strong enough to throw Voldemort back when he was chasing Harry and, IIRC, deflect his Avada Kedavra. Good question about the blood protection at Privet Drive. Except for the Dementors, which weren't even sent by LV, it seems untested, but evidently it prevented the DEs from seeing Harry until he broke free of it and left "home" forever. So, now that you mention it, I do think we're meant to realize that the blood protection was as good as both DD and LV thought it was. (I never doubted its effectuality, myself.) > 4. Does the general mistrust in the wizarding community and the surveillance and torture of Order members go far enough to explain the lack of resistance to Voldemort's coup? Carol: Not really. The Order should have recruited more members back in OoP, and torture shouldn't stop them from resisting. Nor should such a huge number of Muggle-borns (as we see later) be at the mercy of a small force of DEs, most of whom have no more brains than Stan Shunpike. I think the fall of the Ministry (which neither can nor will protect the citizens of the British WW) is the biggest factor in the unwillingness of the citizenry to fight. And we know from Arthur Weasley how people reacted to the Dark Mark over their houses in VW1. Still, you'd think that the Muggle-borns would hide among their Muggle friends or *something.* > > 5. Harry accuses Lupin both of feeling a bit of a daredevil and of being a coward. What is Rowling saying about the relationship between recklessness and true bravery? Carol: This confrontation was one of my favorite moments in DH, especially when Harry accuses Lupin of feeling like a daredevil and imitating Sirius. The implication seems to be that Lupin is tempting death, as Sirius did not only by going to the Mom but by fighting Bellatrix on the dais of the Veil. Lupin, he's suggesting, wants to die spectularly, too, with the difference being that this suicide by recklessness would in his case be supremely irresponsible and cowardly because it would be a way of freeing himself of the burden of caring for his wife and child while looking like a brave soldier dying for the cause of the WW. JKR, I think, is speaking through Harry in calling Lupin a coward, and Lupin, though he storms out, apparently comes to share this view, as indicated by his behavior in later chapters. Yes, Lupin is an adult and was his teacher, but Lupin is wrong in this instance, and Harry is right to tell him so, IMO. Lupin chose to marry Tonks and to father a child with her; now he has to pay the consequences, one of which is to think of others before he thinks of himself. I think that JKR is saying that Marauder-style recklessness was bad enough when it endangered the people of Hogsmeade; in this instance, it would endanger Lupin's own family by depriving them of his protection. True bravery isn't rushing heedlessly into danger; it's facing the consequences of your own actions without running away. > > 6. What do you think of Lupin's reasons for wanting to leave his family? Given earlier hints in canon that Lupin is an occlumens, is his apparent lack of feeling for Tonks only a pretense, or is he truly indifferent? Carol responds: I'm not going to get into whether Lupin is an Occlumens (or Legilimens) because the hints are never resolved in canon and I'm not sure they apply here. However, I think he must have loved Tonks or he wouldn't have married her. I certainly see his reasons for rejecting her--the age difference, his being a werewolf, his poverty--as the legitimate reasons a responsible man would give for refusing the love of an attractive young woman who could easily find a more suitable husband if she wished to. If he loved her, his wish for her safety and happiness would be all the more reason to refuse her. I think he must have given in, partly because she had confessed her love in front of so many people, all of whom seemed to be pressuring him to let love triumph, and because he had been lonely and rejected all his life, and being loved and wanted seemed worth the risk. Then, of course, he realized that he'd endangered her just by marrying her (the Bellatrix factor) and he discovered that she was pregnant and he feared the birth of "cubs" who would share his curse. Weak to begin with, he seems to have nearly broken under the strain. Joining Harry's seemingly doomed quest to do he didn't know what seemed like a way out of his dilemma. Once that option was closed to him (not that it was ever really open), he returned home and, apparently, found happiness with his young wife and her mother. (His claim that they rejected him sounds like a lie to me. I can't see any member of the Tonks family doing that.) Interesting that he later adopts the nickname that Tonks's parents used for her, Dora. > > 7. It is an axiom of political science that every new regulation creates an opportunity for graft. Did Scrimgeour's attempts to restrict the selling of magical devices (HBP ch 5) do more harm than good? Carol: Erm, which restrictions? I can't answer the question without more information. > > 8. On a lighter note, I think this is at least the seventh time that canon refers to Umbridge as a hag. Could she actually be one? Carol: If she were, she'd have eaten the children in pies rather than torturing them with her quill. Seriously, I think she really is related to Selwyn (who provides her later with Mad-Eye's eye). Besides, she looks like a toad, and I picture hags as having huge hooked noses that touch their prominent, hairy chins. I think HRH are using "hag" pretty much as Muggle kids would to refer to an "old" (middle-aged) woman they considered exceptionally mean or cruel (in this case, with justification). > > > Pippin, with thanks to SSSusan for proofreading, > > NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see > "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database > From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 10 00:05:33 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:05:33 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180527 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: Geoff: > > Harry has had the idea put nto his head that Slytherin=bad. > > Therefore, because Draco=Slytherin, Draco=bad, a perception > > which has beenh eightened by Draco's swaggering entrance > > and his attempt to impress Harry. > > Alla: > > Well, again Draco is not in Slytherin yet, isn't he? I am only > talking about their initial meetings before they were sorted. Geoff: Ah, but..... '"Know what house you'll be in yet?" "No," said Harry, feeling more stupid by the minute. "Well, no one really knows until they get there, do they, but I know I'll be in Slytherin, all our family have been -"' ( PS, "Diagon Alley", p.60 UK edition) Enough to trigger Harry's alarm bells, I suspect. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 00:08:39 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:08:39 -0000 Subject: Electricity & magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180528 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Platform 9-3/4 is deserted most of the time. Twice a year, > a group of people gather to take the train to/from Hogwarts. zanooda: Wouldn't the kids also go home for Christmas and Easter holidays :-)? But even if so, that would make only six times a year, and not even for the whole day - probably just for a couple of hours. There is another strange thing about the Platform 9 and 3/4: why no one ever passes through the barrier except for Harry and the Weasleys? Are they the last ones every time :-)? From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jan 10 00:15:15 2008 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:15:15 EST Subject: Explain This Passage Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180529 Carol wrote: I think, though I can't be sure, that Wizards in general (whether or not they believe in pure-blood supremacy) would consider a Half-Blood to have Wizarding blood and therefore would not count that person as a Muggle in the bloodline. However, that person's Muggle or Muggle-born parent would count as a Muggle grandparent, preventing the child of a Half-Blood and a Pure-blood from being considered a Pure-Blood himself or herself. However, if that child were to marry a pure-blood, his or her children could count themselves as pure-bloods if they were so inclined because they would have no Muggle )or Muggle-born) grandparents. Julie: This is how I understand it too. And isn't this how it pretty much worked in Nazi Germany when it came to identifying Jews--if you had a Jewish grandparent, i.e. you were of at least one-quarter Jewish descent, then you were a "Jew." (Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I may well be!) So in the WW you aren't pureblood if your blood is "tainted" by the presence of a Muggle or Muggleborn within two generations. So it seems to me. Though I'm not sure JKR ever specified such, I did get the impression she was in fact alluding to Nazi Germany and Aryan supremacy with the whole Pureblood supremacy issue. Julie **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From carylcb at hotmail.com Thu Jan 10 00:20:30 2008 From: carylcb at hotmail.com (clcb58) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:20:30 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: <25564.132.229.183.139.1199881981.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180530 > >> lizzyben wrote: > >> > Another oddity, to me, is that while the text seems to approve of > >> Muggleborn/Wizard marriages, it seems to look down on Muggle/Wizard > >> marriages. After all, the only two we hear about are totally > >> dysfunctional & poisonous. So, it's not very approving of > >> relationships between people of different cultures. > >> > > > > clcb58: Other Muggle/Wizard marriages that aren't "totally dysfunctional & poisonous" (at least not obviously so): Ted and Andromeda Tonks Seamus Finnigan's parents ...which leads to the question of why Seamus was at Hogwarts in DH when only purebloods were allowed to attend? clcb From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 00:43:57 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:43:57 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180531 > > 5. Harry accuses Lupin both of feeling a bit of a daredevil and of > being a coward. What is Rowling saying about the relationship between > recklessness and true bravery? > > Carol: > This confrontation was one of my favorite moments in DH, especially > when Harry accuses Lupin of feeling like a daredevil and imitating > Sirius. The implication seems to be that Lupin is tempting death, as > Sirius did not only by going to the Mom but by fighting Bellatrix on > the dais of the Veil. Lupin, he's suggesting, wants to die > spectularly, too, with the difference being that this suicide by > recklessness would in his case be supremely irresponsible and cowardly > because it would be a way of freeing himself of the burden of caring > for his wife and child while looking like a brave soldier dying for > the cause of the WW. JKR, I think, is speaking through Harry in > calling Lupin a coward, and Lupin, though he storms out, apparently > comes to share this view, as indicated by his behavior in later > chapters. Yes, Lupin is an adult and was his teacher, but Lupin is > wrong in this instance, and Harry is right to tell him so, IMO. Lupin > chose to marry Tonks and to father a child with her; now he has to pay > the consequences, one of which is to think of others before he thinks > of himself. I think that JKR is saying that Marauder-style > recklessness was bad enough when it endangered the people of > Hogsmeade; in this instance, it would endanger Lupin's own family by > depriving them of his protection. True bravery isn't rushing > heedlessly into danger; it's facing the consequences of your own > actions without running away. a_svirn: Well, I can understand marrying-and-facing-consequences bit, but the suicide theory is a pure conjecture, I think. There was nothing in the chapter to suggest that Lupin actively sought death. No had Sirius, really. And as for leaving his family without protection, it simply wasn't the case. Lupin stated the obvious when he said that they would be much safer without him. Just like they were safer without Ted Tonks. Or do you think Ted Tonks was being cowardly when he left his family "without his protection"? He practically quoted his son-in-low when he said that his wife should be OK since she was pureblood. And was Lupin acting cowardly when left his wife and son without his protection to come to Hogwarts to fight? How about Tonks herself? She was supposed to stay with her pureblood mother and her infant son, and she also came to Hogwarts to fight instead, leaving her child "without her protection". a_svirn From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 00:52:23 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:52:23 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180532 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "clcb58" wrote: > Other Muggle/Wizard marriages that aren't "totally dysfunctional & > poisonous" (at least not obviously so): > Ted and Andromeda Tonks > Seamus Finnigan's parents > ...which leads to the question of why Seamus was at Hogwarts in DH > when only purebloods were allowed to attend? Ted Tonks is not Muggle - he is Muggle-born. As for Seamus, I think that only Muggle-borns were not allowed to attend Hogwarts. Students had to prove that they were of wizard descent and get Blood Status ("The Bribe" p.210 Am. ed.). Seamus's mother is a witch, so he is allowed to attend (Blood Status - half-blood). That's how I understand it, anyway :-). zanooda From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Jan 10 01:08:11 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:08:11 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180533 > Julie: > > This is how I understand it too. And isn't this how it pretty much worked in Nazi Germany when it came to identifying Jews--if you had a Jewish grandparent, i.e. you were of at least one-quarter Jewish descent, then you were a "Jew." (Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I may well be!) So in the WW you aren't pureblood if your blood is "tainted" by the presence of a Muggle or Muggleborn within two generations. So it seems to me. Though I'm not sure JKR ever specified such, I did get the impression she was in fact alluding to Nazi Germany and Aryan supremacy with the whole Pureblood supremacy issue. Julie Tiffany: That's the same way I think JKR was trying to convey Pureblood in the WW as well. The example you mentioned also reminds me a lot of the way it was here in the USA with the Jim Crow laws, where if you were even a trace of black heritage then you were considered black instead of white, even if you had white parents. I can't tell if JKR ever dirtectly alluded to Nazi Germany, but I did get the impression that was the example she incorporated into the canon. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 02:03:16 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:03:16 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180534 Alla wrote: > > > > Well, again Draco is not in Slytherin yet, isn't he? I am only talking about their initial meetings before they were sorted. > Geoff replied: > Ah, but..... > '"Know what house you'll be in yet?" > "No," said Harry, feeling more stupid by the minute. > "Well, no one really knows until they get there, do they, > but I know I'll be in Slytherin, all our family have been -"' > > ( PS, "Diagon Alley", p.60 UK edition) > > Enough to trigger Harry's alarm bells, I suspect. Carol responds to both: Okay, you're both right. Draco isn't in Slytherin yet, but he tells Harry that he knows he will be (and he's right). However, as the exchange also shows, Harry knows nothing at this point about the Houses, so Draco's expecting to be Sorted into Slytherin has no effect on Harry's view of him in this *initial* exchange. In fact, except for being reminded strongly of Dudley by the "bullying Father" remark, Harry's chief feeling throughout most of this conversation is embarrassment at his ignorance ("feeling stupider by the minute"). He doesn't know about the Houses or Quidditch; he doesn't have his own broom. When Draco makes it clear that he doesn't know who Hagrid is, Harry has a moment of superiority, "pleased to know something the boy didn't." He starts disliking Draco rather emphatically when Draco refers to Hagrid as "a sort of servant" (obviously reflecting the attitude of his parents toward a mere gamekeeper). When he repeats the (partially true) rumors he's heard, that Hagrid is "a sort of savage" who "lives in a hut on the school grounds and every once in a while gets drunk, tries to do magic, and ends up setting fire to his bed" (AHA! moment--*That's where DD setting fire to his bedcurtains in the GoF film comes from), Harry's reaction turns cold. At that point, Draco (with a slight sneer at Harry's remark about thinking Hagrid is "brilliant") turns the subject to Harry's background, makes his remark about not letting "the other sort" in, and asks his unanswered question about Harry's surname (a hint that there's some sort of Wizarding aristocracy or "in group" to which he considers himself to belong). The conversation is interrupted by Madam Malkin telling Draco he's done. Harry then asks Hagrid about Quidditch, comments about the boy's saying that kids from Muggle families shouldn't be allowed into Hogwarts, and asks about Slytherin and Hufflepuff, the two Houses mentioned by the boy (whose name he still doesn't know). At that point, Hagrid makes his "not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" remark, noting that Voldemrot (erm, Voldemort) was one of them. At that point, it seems to me, Harry's view of Slytherin is formed. He doesn't like the boy who wants to be in Slytherin and seems to be prejudiced against kids from Muggle families. And when Hagrid paints Slytherin as the House of Voldemort and his followers, he knows for sure that he doesn't want to be in that House. Better to be a Dufferpuff. (all quotes from SS 77-80). Then, on the Hogwarts Express, Draco enters Harry's and Ron's compartment, flanked by two mean-looking, thickset boys, looking much more interested in talking to Harry now that he knows who he is. He introduces himself, along with Crabbe and Goyle (who don't even rate having their first names announced), exchanges insults with Ron, tells Harry that he can help him make friends with kids from the "better families," and tries to shake Harry's hands. Harry refuses it, saying that he can tell "the wrong sort" for himself. Draco turns a bit pink and warns Harry that if he hangs around with "riffraff like the Weasleys and that Hagrid," he's likely to go the same way as his parents. h eand Ron stand up and he tells Draco to get out. Draco (I'd forgotten this detail) says that he and his friends don't feel like leaving and suggests that his friends help themselves to Ron's and Harry's food, at which point, Scabbers has his moment of glory, biting Goyle's hand, and the trio of future Slytherins leave. Ron tells Harry (in the hearing of Hermione, who has just showed up) that the Malfoys had been on Voldemort's side but had claimed to be "bewitched" when LV's supporters were being rounded up. He adds that his father thinks Draco's father "didn't need an excuse to go over to the Dark Side." that, of course, gives Harry yet more reason to dislike Draco and associate Slytherin with Voldemort. (SS 108-110). By the time of the Sorting Ceremony, then, he's developed the idea of Slytherin that he retains until HBP and DH show him a more human side of some of the Slytherins (including Draco). Learning that Snape is the Head of Slytherin and favors his own students predisposes Harry to see Snape's treatment of himself and Neville in the worst possible light. He goes to bed dreaming of the Sorting Hat, which seemed to think he might do well in Slytherin, Quirrell's turban (which he perhaps senses is somehow connected with LV), Draco turning into Snape and laughing Voldemort's high, cold laugh, followed by a flash of green light (SS 132). It's as if he doesn't distinguish one from another an eleven-year-old boy from the teacher who seems to have made his scar hurt (though he hasn't yet met him) from the Dark Wizard who killed his parents. Snape and Draco are Slytherins; Slytherin is Voldemort's House; Voldemort is evil; therefore Snape and Draco and everyone else associated with Slytherin is evil. I would say that he isn't prejudiced against Draco and certainly not against a House he's never heard of when he meets Draco in Madam Malkin's, and he develops his dislike of Draco based primarily on Draco's own words and actions, but the combination of Draco himself and the comments of Hagrid, Ron, and Percy predisposes him to reject Slytherin and everything he thinks it stands for. By the time he attends his first Potions class, he's thoroughly prejudiced against Slytherin and dislike Snape, with the events in that class seeming to confirm that prejudgment. As for Draco, he's certainly predisposed to favor Slytherin, look down on Muggle-borns, and sneer at the Weasleys and Hagrid. Nothing else is to be expected of an eleven-year-old, who is imitating the attitudes and behavior he sees at home. (Harry, not being part of the WW and not having any parents to pass on their attitudes to him, forms his prejudgments on the experiences of a few days and the comments of people he has only recently met.) Carol, who can't get off the phone and hopes that this post isn't full of uncaught errors From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 02:09:02 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:09:02 -0000 Subject: Draco and Harry initial meeting WAS : Re: JKR's lesson on prejudice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180535 > > Alla: > > > > Well, again Draco is not in Slytherin yet, isn't he? I am only > > talking about their initial meetings before they were sorted. > > Geoff: > Ah, but..... > '"Know what house you'll be in yet?" > "No," said Harry, feeling more stupid by the minute. > "Well, no one really knows until they get there, do they, > but I know I'll be in Slytherin, all our family have been -"' > > ( PS, "Diagon Alley", p.60 UK edition) > > Enough to trigger Harry's alarm bells, I suspect. > Alla: Ah, but...... Actually no, let me say that much - that COULD have been exactly the statement that I was looking for to show that Harry's dislike of Draco at least partially based on prejudice, IF..... when Draco said this Harry knew anything bad about Slytherin. Hagrid says his Slytherin is no good thing approximately four pages after exchange that you quoted occurred. So, I am afraid not enough to trigger Harry's alarm bells, since at this point Harry has no alarm bells to be triggerred. I am quoting the exchange right since you started till Hagrid saying his thing. And narrator tells us that Harry disliked the boy ONLY after he starts making jabs on Hagrid. Those are roughly pages 77-79 of PS/SS amer.paperback and no, I did not type them all up right now - it was much earlier. ""No," said Harry, feeling more stupid by the minute. "Well, no one really knows until they get there, do they, but I know I'll be in Slytherin, all our family have been?imagine being in Hufflepuff, I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?" "Mmm," said Harry, wishing he could say something a bit more interesting. "I say, look at that man!" said the boy suddenly, nodding toward the front window. Hagrid was standing there, grinning at Harry and pointing at two large ice creams to show he couldn't come in. "That's Hagrid," said Harry, pleased to know something the boy didn't. "He works at Hogwarts." "Oh," said the boy, "I've heard of him. He's a sort of servant, isn't he?" "He's the gamekeeper," said Harry. He was liking the boy less and less every second. "Yes, exactly. I heard he's a sort of savage?lives in a hut on the school grounds and every now and then he gets drunk, tries to do magic, and ends up setting fire to his bed." "I think he's brilliant," said Harry coldly. "Do you?" said the boy, with a slight sneer. "Why is he with you? Where are your parents?" "They're dead," said Harry shortly. He didn't feel much like going into the matter with this boy. "Oh, sorry," said the other,. not sounding sorry at all. "But they were our kind, weren't they?" "They were a witch and wizard, if that's what you mean." "I really don't think they should let the other sort in, do you? They're just not the same, they've never been brought up to know our ways. Some of them have never even heard of Hogwarts until they get the letter, imagine. I think they should keep it in the old wizarding families. What's your surname, anyway?" But before Harry could answer, Madam Malkin said, "That's you done, my dear," and Harry, not sorry for an excuse to stop talking to the boy, hopped down from the footstool. "Well, I'll see you at Hogwarts, I suppose," said the drawling boy. Harry was rather quiet as he ate the ice cream Hagrid had bought him (chocolate and raspberry with chopped nuts). "What's up?" said Hagrid. "Nothing," Harry lied. They stopped to buy parchment and quills. Harry cheered up a bit when he found a bottle of ink that changed color as you wrote. When they had left the shop, he said, "Hagrid, what's Quidditch?" "Blimey, Harry, I keep forgettin' how little yeh know?not knowin' about Quidditch!" "Don't make me feel worse," said Harry. He told Hagrid about the pate boy in Madam Malkin's. "?and he said people from Muggle families shouldn't even be allowed in." "Yer not from a Muggle family. If he'd known who yeh were?he's grown up knowin' yer name if his parents are wizardin' folk. You saw what everyone in the Leaky Cauldron was like when they saw yeh. Anyway, what does he know about it, some o' the best I ever saw were the only ones with magic in `em in a long line 0' Muggles?look at yer mum! Look what she had fer a sister!" "So what is Quidditch?" "It's our sport. Wizard sport. It's like?like soccer in the Muggle world?everyone follows Quidditch?played up in the air on broomsticks and there's four balls?sorta hard ter explain the rules." "And what are Slytherin and Hufflepuff?" "School houses. There's four. Everyone says Hufflepuff are a lot o' duffers, but?" "I bet I'm in Hufflepuff" said Harry gloomily. "Better Hufflepuff than Slytherin," said Hagrid darkly. "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin. You- Know-Who was one."" From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jan 10 02:29:49 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:29:49 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180536 > > Julie: > > > > This is how I understand it too. And isn't this how it pretty much > worked in Nazi Germany when it came to identifying Jews--if you had a > Jewish grandparent, i.e. you were of at least one-quarter Jewish > descent, then you were a "Jew." (Please correct me if I'm wrong, and > I may well be!) > > So in the WW you aren't pureblood if your blood is "tainted" by the > presence of a Muggle or Muggleborn within two generations. So it > seems to me. Though I'm not sure JKR ever specified such, I did get > the impression she was in fact alluding to Nazi Germany and Aryan > supremacy with the whole Pureblood supremacy issue. > Tiffany: > > That's the same way I think JKR was trying to convey Pureblood in the > WW as well. The example you mentioned also reminds me a lot of the > way it was here in the USA with the Jim Crow laws, where if you were > even a trace of black heritage then you were considered black instead > of white, even if you had white parents. I can't tell if JKR ever > dirtectly alluded to Nazi Germany, but I did get the impression that > was the example she incorporated into the canon. Magpie: But that's not the way it is in canon. It works the opposite way. As long as you've got Wizard blood you're a Wizard. You're not in the elite that is "Pureblood" according to certain Slytherins, but you're not a Muggle. (Though I kind of hate that it comes down to "imagine the way it works under Jim Crow and under the Nazis--which are different from each other and different from the situation in the WW--and fill it in yourself.) -m From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Jan 10 02:55:53 2008 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:55:53 -0500 Subject: Slytherins come back and some other stuff Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180537 Alla, in relation to Harry having named one of his sons partially after Snape~ "In Jewish tradition kids are named after people we love and respect, yes?" This is the first time I've seen any suggestion that Harry is Jewish. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Jan 10 03:15:12 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:15:12 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180538 > zgirnius: > > We do not know the jobs of Hogwarts teachers before they become Hogwarts teachers, but we may presume they have them. Riddle is told by the sympathetic Headmaster Dippet to get some experience before applying again for the DADA position. Trelawney and Snape are both out of school for some time before they get their jobs, and neither seems to be a James Potter, who does not need to work for a living. Moody is an Auror before he becomes a teacher. Lockhart, a bestselling author. Tiffany: Both Trelawny & Snape spent a good amount of time between getting out of school & getting a job. They are both eventually offered jobs at Hogwarts after their feet wet & getting the experience needed. It is a safe bet to say that Hogwarts teacher have jobs before they get teaching positions at Hogwarts, even though we may not know their exact pre-Hogwarts job title. From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Thu Jan 10 03:01:16 2008 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:01:16 -0000 Subject: Electricity & magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180539 > Barry: > I've been informed on this site that magic interferes with electrical > devices. Since platform 9 3/4 is a pretty large magic site, I'm > wondering how this affects the power on all the other platforms. > > Sali, now wondering if the problems that the British rail system has > can be due to the Hogwarts express rather than leaves on the line or > the wrong kind of snow. Maybe we can also blame the weather on JKR? Barry From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 03:52:45 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:52:45 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180540 > Betsy Hp: > I think it was Sydney who described Voldemort as more a force of > nature or a monster than an actual antagonist for Harry. He's not > a character we were supposed to look at for any kind of depth or > nuance (our peep into his childhood made that quite clear). Mike: I wasn't really interested in nuance from Voldemort, I just wanted to be scared of him throughout. We started with the he-who-must-not-be- named in book one building up to his reincarnation in GoF (4). I was truly scared of Voldemort in the Graveyard scene, the build up worked for me. Now, this most scary being is officially and fully *back*. And then he ... nothing! For two books he wasn't scary at all. He was out there somewhere. Those glimpses of him through Harry's connection were like watching sound bites on a news program. He hits a few of his DEs with Crucio, so what? They're DEs, they deserve it. Crucio isn't scary anymore either. Yes, the duel in the Mom with DD, was cool, but I only had a few seconds to be scared for Harry in that scene and then Dumbledore to the rescue. (BTW, I didn't buy Harry standing there dumbstruck after the Graveyard duel.) The terror going on throughout Britain in HBP seemed to be perpetrated by the DEs and their allies (giants, werewolves, etc.). The scariest scene in DH, for me, was Nagini!Bathilda. Sure, Voldemort did the magic, but it was the snake that was scary and gross. I had two books (5 & 6) to get used to Voldemort being back, and I never saw him doing any prodigious feats of magic, something that would justify his immense and frightening reputation as the brilliant, uber powerful, evil wizard of the age. I needed Voldemort to *be* that "force of nature", as Sydney put it, to justify the fear that he engendered in the WW. For me, LV didn't live up to his billing or his build up. > Betsy Hp: > So I assumed that the deep stuff would come from Harry's > interaction with the actual antagonists of his story: Slytherin. Mike: Would have been fine with me. It's what I expected too. > Betsy Hp: > > So Voldemort didn't need to be all that interesting, but the way > to defeat him should have been. That's where I was expecting > Harry to have to learn some life lessons, etc. Instead, the > defeat of Voldemort *was* the story. Which, you know, yawn. Mike: Voldemort's intelligence and magical abilities needed to be more interesting than they were shown to be, imo. I needed to know that the Horcruxes weren't the only reason why he was still alive. His ability to fly without a broom wasn't enough. He was already a powerfully magical wizard when he entered Hogwarts. But he supposedly travelled the world, "consorting with the worst of our kind". What did he learn? Avada Kedavra, Crucio, Imperius? That's not the way I read it. Where were these great feats of magic, those indicators of why he was impossible for Harry to defeat? Then those "life's lessons" would have been important for Harry to learn. Then Harry would have to come up with a unique way of defeating Voldemort. Instead, we get a repeat of the graveyard (and Harry v Draco outside of Snape's classroom in GoF) combined with a repeat of Godric's Hollow. What did Harry have to learn to accomplish that? The lore of the Elder Wand? Gee, that's interesting! > Betsy Hp: > I'm thrilled with the amount of agreement we have going on, Mike! > Also, I'm curious: what did you want to see with Slytherin? > Obviously, I was hoping for a redemptive arc, but what were you > looking for? A bigger show down? (Honestly, I think I'd have > preferred that to the whimper Slytherin ended with.) Mike: It wasn't so much *with* Slytherin, for me, as it was with Snape and even moreso with Draco. I know that JKR was keeping the whole Snape arc a secret from Harry, but it wasn't a secret from her readers and she knew it. I wanted more hints than the Hagrid detention for Snape's true leanings, I wanted more scenes with Snape in general. Maybe one of those 'sans Harry' scenes of Hogwarts somewhere in the middle of the book. Though I will admit that after Snape was sent packing by McGonnagall and Flitwick so late in the book, I was getting seriously concerned for Snape's true loyalties. So maybe I'm countermanding my own request here. I just thought there should have been more interaction between Snape and Harry than Harry collecting Snape's thoughts while he's in his death throes. Snape was too delicious of a character for his big reveal to be post mortem. But Draco was the biggest disappointment. What happened to that kid that was lowering his wand on the Astronomy tower? Would it have been cliche if Draco had suddenly turned on Crabbe and Goyle in the RoR, then telling a grateful Harry "I didn't do it for you, I did it for my parents"? Maybe. But Draco's entire arc seemed to be about discovering Voldemort was not only a terrible choice, he was a real threat to his and his parents lives. He showed all those indications in the few scenes we see him in before the return to Hogwarts. So who was this kid in the RoR? And, please, did she need him whimpering to some DE out on the grounds about "being on your side" just so Ron could deliver a punch and one of his cliche'd quips? Was Ron's line that important? Couldn't we have gotten a slight glimmer of remorse and hint of redemption? Hell, Ron could still have delivered his quip. As for Slytherin as a whole, all I really wanted was for them to realize that this stupid pure-blood mania got them where they were, caught in the Voldemort web of deceit. But, like you said about Harry, the Slytherins didn't seem to learn anything either. In any case, 99% of the Slytherin students didn't suffer any repercussions for those beliefs. One scene I would have appreciated. Theo Nott shown throwing a Protego to protect his DE father in battle. As his father turns to thank him, Theo hits him with a Stupify and says something like "This has *got* to end." He then Mobilicorpuses his father off the field towards the front gates. Something simple to show me that at least one of them **Got It**. Mike, who doesn't have the same regrets for the series that Betsy has and still doesn't think the message was evil, but is seeing more and more her side of the story. Who says the story's over and there's nothing left to discuss? ;) From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 04:10:57 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 04:10:57 -0000 Subject: Biggest DH dissapointment - Lily and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180541 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > Yeah, but they were extremely close and public friends for five > years. It's not like people would "forget" that. zanooda: I still don't see any indication in the book that they really were "extremely" close, except for Snape's "best friends" words - but these are just words. Lily certainly doesn't behave like a "best friend" would in SWM, more like someone who barely knows him (yeah, yeah, I know, JKR didn't want us to guess about Lily/Snape, but still ...). And how would Snape explain his "extremely close and public" friendship with a Muggle-born Gryffindor to his Slytherin friends? > Leslie41: > No, truthfully he wasn't discrete at all. After he called her a > mudblood he literally planted himself at the entrance to Gryffindor > tower until Lily came out. It only happened once, when Severus was desperate and felt it was the only way to make Lily talk to him. And it was the last time they ever talked, I guess. Gryffindor girls wispered about it for a couple of days and then forgot, that's all :-). Before that, I'm sure Snape was careful not to let out too much - it was not in his best interest. > Leslie41: > Obviously Snape helped her with Potions. I used to think that myself :-), but not anymore, not after DH. If Lily was that good at Potions only because of Snape's help, how come she went on being good after they split up? Slughorn would have noticed the difference. OK, Sluggy had a soft spot for Lily, but still, Snape helping Lily is only your guess, and not something obvious :-). > Leslie: > There's huge amounts of unstructured free time that they > could be together. Or how did Harry end up with Cho Chang, > a Ravenclaw? Or good friends with Luna, also a Ravenclaw? Cho is not a very good example, there was no real closeness between them. As for Luna, she is just what you called her, "a good friend", not a closest ever personal friend. And if Harry for some reason stopped being friends with Luna at the end of his 5th year, in 15 years no one would remember they ever were friends :-). > > zanooda2: > > I'm not sure you will be satisfied with my answer > > (I am not exactly satisfied myself :-), but it's the > > best I can do :-). > Leslie41: > Unfortunately I'm not. But that's not your fault--you're trying to > construct reasons and Rowling hasn't given you anything to work > with. zanooda: Yeah, sorry about that! This particular problem doesn't bother me much (although I can see your point to some degree :-), but there are others that *do* bother me, and I perfectly understand how frustrating it is not to be able to find an explanation ;-( From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 04:47:38 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 04:47:38 -0000 Subject: Snape in DH (WAS: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180542 > Mike: > It wasn't so much *with* Slytherin, for me, as it was with Snape and > even moreso with Draco. I know that JKR was keeping the whole Snape > arc a secret from Harry, but it wasn't a secret from her readers and > she knew it. I wanted more hints than the Hagrid detention for > Snape's true leanings, I wanted more scenes with Snape in general. > Maybe one of those 'sans Harry' scenes of Hogwarts somewhere in the > middle of the book. zgirnius: There were more hints. The inability of DEs to get into 12 GP, possibly. The business of the fake sword in Snape's office, I certainly thought. (It's also the incident of Ginny et. al. breaking into the office, but the fakeness of the sword is a separate issue from the 'cruel punishment'.) I was nervous from that point on until Griphook covered for Harry (and Snape, effectively), that the substitution might be discovered, since I favored the idea Snape would die as a result of being discovered in his betrayal of Voldemort. Above all, Chapter 19, "The Silver Doe". That was when I *knew*, without a doubt. (George's ear made me wonder for half the book...) It had to be him for any number of reasons. First, this was Rowling using one of the better proposed solutions to the ESE! theorists' objection, "But there is no point to Snape really being good because no one will believe it anyway and he will not be able to help." It was suggested that an unknown Patronus of a form that inspires trust could provide information and aid, and voila, there one was, providing aid. Also, the caster of the Patronus had access to the real sword. Which had been in the Headmaster's office. Yeah, it could have been given to someone else before DD's death, which he knew was coming, but then why bother with a fake and a will? And LOLLIPOPS, most of all. The actual *form* of the helpful mystery Patronus. I don't recall anyone suggesting Snape would have a doe Patronus, but some sort of pure innocent lovely woodland creature (unicorn was popular, IIRC) that symbolized Lily had certainly been suggested. A doe did make sense. James's mate, Harry's mom, etc. And she (the doe) was *familiar* to Harry. Of course! In the same sense that Prongs defended Harry from the Dementors, Lily was present to the caster of that Patronus. Harry would recognize her just as he recognized James. Had to be Sev. I also do not think that a scene of Hogwarts in the middle would have been used by Rowling to hint that Snape was a good guy. From the behavior of the other teachers in "The Sacking of Severus Snape", I would imagine such a scene would basically duplicate in function the murder of Charity Burbage. We'd get to see Snape seemingly indifferent in the face of the Carrows' excesses. Finally, not all of her readers saw the Snape character arc coming correctly. Not even on groups like this one, where we read and reread her books and discussed possible hints in her interviews, and so on. So her project of making it a shocking revelation near the end of the book was not wasted on all her readers. I'm not sure what the percentages are, or to what extent age might figure into it, but I would bet that fan forums do not give a correct impression on the extent to which the Snape arc was obvious to readers. Her own interview comments suggest to me that having it be a late surprise was her original vision, and the presence of a sizable segment of readers for whom it was working seems reason enough to me for her not to change plans. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 05:32:38 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:32:38 -0000 Subject: Biggest DH dissapointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180543 > Leslie41: > But I never believed those clues because it made no sense that Snape > loved Lily, because if he had loved her and been such a close friend, > everyone would have known (and they did) and someone would have > mentioned something to Harry. zgirnius: Why do you believe that it follows from the fact that Sev loved Lily, that this love was common knowledge? I think the first living human other than Snape to ever learn of it was Dumbledore, when desperate young DE!Snape showed up on his doorstep (hillside, whatever. ) All that was common knowledge was that they were friends. This, and not that Snape actually loved her, would have been known to Lupin and Sirius (the two people you suppose ought to have told Harry). Lupin and Sirius would also know that Snape called her a Mudblood in a public incident they would probably not care to recount to Harry, and that thereafter there occured a clean break between the two of them, and they never so much as spoke again. > Leslie41: > Why on earth would Remus and Sirius hold back something like that? > Especially Sirius, who would have relished telling Harry that Snape > held a terrible grudge because he was thwarted in love? zgirnius: I agree this is a delightful tidbit, but not that Sirius knew it. I consider the dialogue in the Shack scene of PoA to be evidence for my view. Snape's words hinted that the reason he desired vengeance against Sirius was not what they all thought, but neither Lupin nor Sirius picked up on it. > Leslie41: > What would be the purpose of withholding that knowledge from Harry? zgirnius: What would be the point of telling Harry Snape and Lily had once been friends, for Lupin or for Sirius? In the absence of knowledge that Snape was romantically hooked on Lily, I think the more likely thing Sirius would mention was Snape's apparent display of blood prejudice, except that given the entire circumstances of that incident, I can see why Sirius would not volunteer it. Also, Sev called them 'best friends', but Lily was in a different House and had friends of her own who disapproved of Sev. And Sev, of course, had his Slytherin gang. I think the outsider's view was likely that Lily was nice to Sev because she was such a nice person and they had been friendly before Hogwarts. I also don't think the friendship was primarily built and maintained thought conspicuous friendslike activities at school. But they might have been spending hours a day together over the summer vacations (until after 5th year, of course). There is also an aspect of Sirius's view of Snape that I find makes this credible. Sirius despises Snape, but in a specific way of considering himself and his friends vastly superior. Snape is a 'just this little oddball', and has awful looks on which Sirius is compelled to comment whenever the matter comes up, whrears James is 'the height of cool'. Lily, on the other hand, had become a friend who signed her letters to Sirius "Lots of Love". I think this would make him even more likely to underestimate the importance Sev and Lily once had for one another. James 'deflated his head a bit' and so nothing about the old James gets told to Harry. Likewise, I think Sirius saw the breakup as 'Lily finally growing some sense', and saw no need to say anything about the old Lily. And there is also the thing of Harry reminding both Remus and Sirius so much of his father. In the limited time Jo gives them with Harry, it does not seem so odd that they focus on James. --zgirnius, joining Carol in wishing Sev a Happy Birthday! From lauren1 at catliness.com Thu Jan 10 04:24:24 2008 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:24:24 -0800 Subject: Luna's Dad References: Message-ID: <04d201c8534f$ce140740$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 180544 Hi, One person I was disappointed in was Luna's Dad. Luna was one of Harry's best friends and her Dad ended up betraying Harry and his friends. It made for a scary part of the story but still, I was disappointed. Thanks Lauren [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 06:37:23 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 22:37:23 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0801082255oe38a93aidc1bb0f773e4ec3b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0801092237x49c9a59ak6e5255af508b3b61@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180545 Va2h: > I don't think you are getting my point. As I said, it doesn't matter what we do in real life. It matters what characters in the HP world do, and no character has been shown to juggle multiple jobs and family. Lynda: Oh, I got what you were saying. All I'm saying is just because it wasn't shown (explicitly) in the series doesn't mean it was not a possibility. Maybe Rowling is mimicing reality more closely than some people realize. And if that's true, its not a consistency problem on Rowling's part. Lynda -- 2 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 06:46:06 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 22:46:06 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: <47851F98.4060703@sprynet.com> References: <47851F98.4060703@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0801092246h2c5f8f89i64150a99250fec75@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180546 Bart Lidowski: Every hear of "waiving the requirements"? Happens all the time in the armed forces during wartime, where performance on the battlefield will gain someone promotions that they would not normally be qualified to get Lynda: Happens regardless of war in the armed forces. This is slightly different, of course, but one of my barracks-mates when I was in basic was a little person (dwarf). They wanted her for the intelligence service. She spent her first two days in basic getting her specially fitted uniforms together. Nope. I'm not pulling the group leg here. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 06:54:16 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 22:54:16 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: <2795713f0801092246h2c5f8f89i64150a99250fec75@mail.gmail.com> References: <47851F98.4060703@sprynet.com> <2795713f0801092246h2c5f8f89i64150a99250fec75@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0801092254o17d51befvfb5045e631fb418b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180547 Lynda: It seems to me that some sort of job has to get people in the WW from point A (graduating from Hogwarts or whatever other institution of magical learning they attended) to point B-getting the job or jobs that they perform during their adulthood, whether its being a vendor at a street fair of some sort or working in a shop or for some other institution, but that's just my take on things and I could be completely wrong. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 07:02:41 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:02:41 -0000 Subject: Luna's Dad In-Reply-To: <04d201c8534f$ce140740$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180548 > Lauren: > Hi, > One person I was disappointed in was Luna's Dad. Luna was one of Harry's best friends and her Dad ended up betraying Harry and his friends. It made for a scary part of the story but still, I was disappointed. zgirnius: I liked Xenophilius (though he was surely a bit nutty). His heart was definitely with the good side. After the fall of the Ministry, when the Daily Prophet printed Voldemort's party line, Xeno printed real news in the Quibbler and urged people to support Harry. This changed when the Death Eaters kidnapped Luna from the train station and held her hostage at Malfoy Manor. I'm not saying his decision to betray the Trio was right, but I certainly found it understandable. The life of his own child was at stake. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 10 07:49:15 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:49:15 -0000 Subject: Draco and Harry initial meeting WAS : Re: JKR's lesson on prejudice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180549 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > > Alla: > > > > > > Well, again Draco is not in Slytherin yet, isn't he? I am only > > > talking about their initial meetings before they were sorted. > > > > Geoff: > > Ah, but..... > > '"Know what house you'll be in yet?" > > "No," said Harry, feeling more stupid by the minute. > > "Well, no one really knows until they get there, do they, > > but I know I'll be in Slytherin, all our family have been -"' > > > > ( PS, "Diagon Alley", p.60 UK edition) > > > > Enough to trigger Harry's alarm bells, I suspect. > > > > > Alla: > > Ah, but...... > > Actually no, let me say that much - that COULD have been exactly the > statement that I was looking for to show that Harry's dislike of > Draco at least partially based on prejudice, IF..... > > when Draco said this Harry knew anything bad about Slytherin. > > Hagrid says his Slytherin is no good thing approximately four pages > after exchange that you quoted occurred. > > > So, I am afraid not enough to trigger Harry's alarm bells, since at > this point Harry has no alarm bells to be triggerred. > > I am quoting the exchange right since you started till Hagrid saying > his thing. And narrator tells us that Harry disliked the boy ONLY > after he starts making jabs on Hagrid. > > Those are roughly pages 77-79 of PS/SS amer.paperback and no, I did > not type them all up right now - it was much earlier. Geoff: Yes, I've picked the wrong spot. I'm really tending to base my thinking on the train exchange because I think that most of the intense rivalry and dislike between the two boys stems from that seminal point where Harry refuses Draco's hand. I don't see that as prejudice but as the slightly ruffled reaction when a first contact with someone new goes wrong. I can remember a similar situation years ago when I met a new teaching colleague and he said something in the first couple of minutes which raised my hackles and it was a long time before we really felt at ease working with each other. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Jan 10 08:01:20 2008 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:01:20 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Harry initial meeting WAS : Re: JKR's lesson on prejudice In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFC6321D@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 180550 > > > Alla: > > > > > > Well, again Draco is not in Slytherin yet, isn't he? I am only > > > talking about their initial meetings before they were sorted. > > > > Geoff: > > Ah, but..... > > '"Know what house you'll be in yet?" > > "No," said Harry, feeling more stupid by the minute. > > "Well, no one really knows until they get there, do they, > > but I know I'll be in Slytherin, all our family have been -"' > > > > ( PS, "Diagon Alley", p.60 UK edition) > > > > Enough to trigger Harry's alarm bells, I suspect. > > > > > Alla: > > Ah, but...... > > Actually no, let me say that much - that COULD have been exactly the > statement that I was looking for to show that Harry's dislike of > Draco at least partially based on prejudice, IF..... > > when Draco said this Harry knew anything bad about Slytherin. > > Hagrid says his Slytherin is no good thing approximately four pages > after exchange that you quoted occurred. > > > So, I am afraid not enough to trigger Harry's alarm bells, since at > this point Harry has no alarm bells to be triggerred. > > I am quoting the exchange right since you started till Hagrid saying > his thing. And narrator tells us that Harry disliked the boy ONLY > after he starts making jabs on Hagrid. > > Those are roughly pages 77-79 of PS/SS amer.paperback and no, I did > not type them all up right now - it was much earlier. Geoff: Yes, I've picked the wrong spot. I'm really tending to base my thinking on the train exchange because I think that most of the intense rivalry and dislike between the two boys stems from that seminal point where Harry refuses Draco's hand. I don't see that as prejudice but as the slightly ruffled reaction when a first contact with someone new goes wrong. I can remember a similar situation years ago when I met a new teaching colleague and he said something in the first couple of minutes which raised my hackles and it was a long time before we really felt at ease working with each other. Sharon: Honestly guys! Isn't it obvious that all that apparent hatred, angst and rivalry between Harry and Draco is masking sexual tension? Dumbledore isn't the only one who's gay if you ask me. It's so obvious ;-) From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Jan 10 11:41:52 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:41:52 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180551 >sistermagpie: > > Magpie: But that's not the way it is in canon. It works the opposite way. As long as you've got Wizard blood you're a Wizard. You're not in the elite that is "Pureblood" according to certain Slytherins, but you're not a Muggle. (Though I kind of hate that it comes down to "imagine the way it works under Jim Crow and under the Nazis--which are different from each other and different from the situation in the WW--and fill it in yourself.) -m Tiffany: I meant to use the Jim Crow laws with respect to the elite definition of "Pureblood" by certain Slytherins at Hogwarts. I know that if you've got Wizard blood then you're a Wizard in the WW & Potterverse. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 10 12:06:05 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:06:05 -0000 Subject: Draco and Harry initial meeting WAS : Re: JKR's lesson on prejudice In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFC6321D@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180552 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: Sharon: > Honestly guys! Isn't it obvious that all that apparent hatred, angst and rivalry between Harry and Draco is masking sexual tension? Dumbledore isn't the only one who's gay if you ask me. It's so obvious ;-) Geoff: Actually it's not. I agree that the sort of confrontation we see could be masking sexual tension but (a) they're too young and (b) speaking as a male, it isn't necessarily gay. Unless things have changed dramatically since I was in my teens, we used to become aware of our sexual drives and needs when most of us were entering what was then the Third Year (Year 9 in modern UK education speak). So, on that count, I would rule that out for the exchanges between Harry and Draco at this point in time. Regarding sexual tension between them, I was a pupil at a single-sex secondary school from 11 onwards. Now, it still may be the case, but we often explored our sexual feelings with other friends by getting together to bring each other to satisfaction, usually through masturbation. There was no deeper physical connection because homosexuality was illegal at that time and there was no way that we poor semi-innocent mid-teens could find out any more. But that didn't make us gay unless that rocked our boat. I can see the possibility for that sort of exploratory relationship between the guys at Hogwarts but I believe that our personal ideas about sexual orientation develop a bit later. Mark you, the idea of Harry and Draco as an item is an intriguing one. I have read some interesting fanfic going along this when I get into a "What would have happened if?" frame of mind. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 10 13:13:29 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:13:29 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180553 > Julie: snip > So in the WW you aren't pureblood if your blood is "tainted" by the presence > of a Muggle or Muggleborn within two generations. So it seems to me. Though > I'm not sure JKR ever specified such, I did get the impression she was in > fact > alluding to Nazi Germany and Aryan supremacy with the whole Pureblood > supremacy issue. Potioncat: Sorry that I can't provide it, but there is a JKR quote about the Pureblood / Half-blood markers and Nazi Germany's markers for blood lines. She says something about being surprised at how closely they lined up. In the Old South there were actual words for the descending degrees of African blood. But JKR didn't model her plan after that. We've brought up degrees and 1/4 blood etc etc; this is Maths, this is JKR---Half- blood is as far as she got. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 10 13:40:32 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:40:32 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180554 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Julie: > snip > > So in the WW you aren't pureblood if your blood is "tainted" by the > presence > > of a Muggle or Muggleborn within two generations. So it seems to me. > Though > > I'm not sure JKR ever specified such, I did get the impression she > was in > > fact > > alluding to Nazi Germany and Aryan supremacy with the whole Pureblood > > supremacy issue. > > Potioncat: > > Sorry that I can't provide it, but there is a JKR quote about the > Pureblood / Half-blood markers and Nazi Germany's markers for blood > lines. She says something about being surprised at how closely they > lined up. Geoff: If you go to JKR's website and then to FAQ -About the books, I think the reference you want is about the 49th item on the list.... From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 15:10:14 2008 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:10:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chapter 10 discussions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <367270.4019.qm@web55114.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180555 tubazrcool wrote many things, but after my ruthless cutting the following remains, regarding Regulus Black and the horcrux: ... I actually thought that the locket was in Grimmauld Place from the moment the note was signed RAB. I linked it to Regulus and remembered the locket from the house-cleaning. He was redeemed right then and there in my mind. I was surprised when Hermione didn't come up with the answer either during the last bit of school or the early part of summer. Mrs. Know-it-all apparently doesn't have any great common sense. Harry should have guessed it too being that Sirius and he did have a long talk about the Black family and its ins-and-outs in the 5th book. akh observes: I would have agreed with you that Hermione seems unnaturally dense about this, had I not recently had a conversation with a very bright friend of mine who is just now reading the HP series (I'm loaning him my Bloomsbury edition volumes). He has finished book 6 and has NO IDEA who RAB is. He won't let me tell him (rightfully so), but I was considerably taken aback that he has neither connected RAB with Regulus, nor has he made the connection between the locket found in Grimmauld Place and the horcrux. (He doesn't even have the excuse of intervening years between books; he finished five just days before picking up six, right before Christmas, and he was finished with 6 by New Year's.) My friend is at least as bright and perceptive as Hermione, so I've now conceded that JKR may not have manipulated Hermione's lack of insight just for plot purposes. BTW, I agree with you about RAB's redemption. Clearly, he had the moral compass that LV completely lacks. akh, who really is planning to get her life back in order and contribute more... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 15:11:03 2008 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:11:03 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <47863593.3a17260a.6e93.1910@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180556 Thanks, Pippin for a great summary and such thoughtful questions. I'm rushing to get ready for work, so I'll respond to more later, but wanted briefly to touch on these two. Pippin 5. Harry accuses Lupin both of feeling a bit of a daredevil and of being a coward. What is Rowling saying about the relationship between recklessness and true bravery? 6. What do you think of Lupin's reasons for wanting to leave his family? Given earlier hints in canon that Lupin is an occlumens, is his apparent lack of feeling for Tonks only a pretense, or is he truly indifferent? Sherry now: Though I knew Lupin was weak, I never had despised him till this chapter. It really changed my whole impression of Lupin. I had stopped wanting him to step into the surrogate parent role to Harry a couple books ago, but after this scene, I was truly thankful. His poor-poor-pitiful-me act finally went too far for me, and apparently for Harry. I felt his wanting to go off with the trio wasn't so much about recklessness as it was wanting to prove he could *do* something, perhaps more to himself than to anyone else. And a bit of returning to his fond memories of the Marauders. But it seemed to me it was all based on his woe is me, I'm a poor mistreated discriminated against werewolf. oh, woe is me. Yeah, he was a werewolf; yeah he did suffer terrible discrimination. So? It is terrible that all those things happened to him, but his life is what he made it to a great deal by all his playing on how terrible it is that he's a werewolf and nobody will befriend, employ, love him, or whatever. At last, he's found acceptance and love, in fact he's had acceptance from some great people for a long time, and what does he want to do? He wants to run away from that love and acceptance, not to mention the responsibility. Harry was right to call him a coward. Apparently it worked, because Lupin appeared to have finally grown up by the end of the book. As a disabled person, and knowing that supposedly Lupin was a metaphor for disability, I was disgusted with him in this scene. I'm sure that reaction is based on my own experiences dealing with serious discrimination throughout my life, and my own personality that will never let me give into it, or ever think that just because I'm blind I'm not worthy, not capable or whatever. I was taught differently by my parents and taught that not even society's views of blindness could stop me if I didn't let it. Yes, I know Lupin's "disability" can be life threatening, but there are certainly people in the world who think the same about people with real world disabilities. Sherry, stepping off her soap box! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 17:33:22 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:33:22 -0000 Subject: Luna's Dad In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180557 Lauren wrote: > > One person I was disappointed in was Luna's Dad. Luna was one of Harry's best friends and her Dad ended up betraying Harry and his friends. It made for a scary part of the story but still, I was disappointed. > > zgirnius: > I liked Xenophilius (though he was surely a bit nutty). His heart was definitely with the good side. After the fall of the Ministry, when the Daily Prophet printed Voldemort's party line, Xeno printed real news in the Quibbler and urged people to support Harry. > > This changed when the Death Eaters kidnapped Luna from the train station and held her hostage at Malfoy Manor. I'm not saying his decision to betray the Trio was right, but I certainly found it understandable. The life of his own child was at stake. 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. He reminds me of Narcissa in HBP, who says that she'll do anything to protect Draco (and lives up to her word by lying to the Dark Lord--without looking into his eyes, of course). At any rate, I think we're meant to hope, along with Hermione, that Xeno doesn't go to prison for (accidentally) letting Harry escape and to admire Hermione's resourcefulness and kindness in letting Travers and Selwyn glimpse Harry so that they know Xeno wasn't lying. (Too bad she doesn't hide under the Invisibility Cloak with Ron instead of letting the DEs know that she's traveling with Harry.) At any rate, Xeno Lovegood is a widowed father who reminds me of the mothers in the series rather than the mostly ineffectual, absent, or bad fathers in the series. He loves his daughter as those mothers love their sons (and one daughter, Ginny), and when it comes to a choice between the courage of his convictions and the life of his daughter, or between his beloved Luna and a boy who is nothing to him but a symbol, he chooses his daughter. How many of us, faced with a similar choice, would have chosen as he did? Let's hope that no one on this list is ever faced with such a terrible dilemma. BTW, Luna isn't really one of Harry's best friends despite the artwork on her ceiling (which, I confess, brought a tear to my sentimental eye). She's a year younger than he is and in a different House. They have no classes together (unless you count the DA). He doesn't meet her till his fifth year (her fourth) and still thinks of her as "just a little oddball" (to borrow a phrase) until she fights with him and his best friends, Ron and Hermione (along with two other people he has underestimated, Ginny and Neville). Her words to him at the end of OoP help him to deal with Sirius Black's death, and she's enough of a friend that he asks her to go to Slughorn's party with him "as friends," but she's never part of his inner circle, which consists solely of Ron and Hermione (and possibly, sometimes, Hagrid). Carol, who likes the eccentric Xenophilius, who would be at home in a Dickens novel if he'd been born a Muggle From rlevatter at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 21:40:43 2008 From: rlevatter at yahoo.com (rlevatter) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:40:43 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180558 Wow! For my first post, I'm amazed at the response. Much of it was very interesting, and of course I agree the key issue is the definition of half-blood, which may encompass more than just "one muggle parent". But instead of analyzing the terms, let's step back a moment and think about what Dumbledore was trying to convey to Harry in the passage in OoP that I initially quoted. Explaining the prophesy to Harry, noting that it could have referred to either him or Neville, what is Dumbledore saying here? I now paraphrase the passage without using "blood" terms: "And note, Harry, that Voldemort, with only one Muggle parent, chose not to go after Neville, with two magical parents and a long lineage of magic, despite his professed belief that those are the only wizards of value. Instead he went after you, whom he saw as just like him, even though you have two magical parents like Neville while he had only one." My point has less to do with bloodline definitions and more with trying to understand the logic of what Dumbledore was trying to tell Harry, or what Voldemort's thinking was. When I rephrase it as I did above, is Voldemort's logic clear to you? In a strong sense, neither Harry nor Neville are like Voldemort in the circumstances of their birth. So why DID Voldemort choose Harry over Neville? RL From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 21:49:26 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:49:26 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Snape in book 7 WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe In-Reply-To: <47863593.3a17260a.6e93.1910@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180559 > Sherry now: > Though I knew Lupin was weak, I never had despised him till this chapter. > It really changed my whole impression of Lupin. I had stopped wanting him > to step into the surrogate parent role to Harry a couple books ago, but > after this scene, I was truly thankful. His poor-poor-pitiful-me act > finally went too far for me, and apparently for Harry. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180560 > 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 From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 22:53:20 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:53:20 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180561 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rlevatter" wrote: > Explaining the prophesy to Harry, noting that it could have > referred to either him or Neville, what is Dumbledore saying > here? I now paraphrase the passage without using "blood" terms: > > "And note, Harry, that Voldemort, with only one Muggle parent, > chose not to go after Neville, with two magical parents and a > long lineage of magic, despite his professed belief that those > are the only wizards of value. Instead he went after you, whom > he saw as just like him, even though you have two magical parents > like Neville while he had only one." > > My point has less to do with bloodline definitions and more > with trying to understand the logic of what Dumbledore was > trying to tell Harry, or what Voldemort's thinking was. When > I rephrase it as I did above, is Voldemort's logic clear to > you? zanooda: Yes, to me his logic is clear :-). Neville is pureblood, without any Muggle blood in his veins. Both LV and Harry have Muggle blood in them - LV a little more than Harry. BTW, I'm not sure that LV "chose" Harry as the prophecy boy over Neville, he surely intended to kill baby Neville as well, just to be sure. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 00:18:45 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:18:45 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180562 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rlevatter" wrote: > > Wow! > > For my first post, I'm amazed at the response. Much of it was > very interesting, and of course I agree the key issue is the > definition of half-blood, which may encompass more than just > "one muggle parent". > > But instead of analyzing the terms, let's step back a moment > and think about what Dumbledore was trying to convey to Harry > in the passage in OoP that I initially quoted. Explaining the > prophesy to Harry, noting that it could have referred to either > him or Neville, what is Dumbledore saying here? I now paraphrase > the passage without using "blood" terms: > > "And note, Harry, that Voldemort, with only one Muggle parent, > chose not to go after Neville, with two magical parents and a > long lineage of magic, despite his professed belief that those > are the only wizards of value. Instead he went after you, whom > he saw as just like him, even though you have two magical parents > like Neville while he had only one." > > My point has less to do with bloodline definitions and more > with trying to understand the logic of what Dumbledore was > trying to tell Harry, or what Voldemort's thinking was. When > I rephrase it as I did above, is Voldemort's logic clear to > you? In a strong sense, neither Harry nor Neville are like > Voldemort in the circumstances of their birth. So why DID > Voldemort choose Harry over Neville? > > RL > Carol responds: I don't think that Voldemort would have paraphrased DD's words as you do because to him, it *is* all about "blood" and bloodlines. Twice, once is CoS as Diary!Tom and once in GoF, he refers to Lily as "your Muggle mother." As far as he was concerned, Harry's mother was no different than his own father even though she could do magic. (He might have thought differently if she'd fought back when he tried to kill her son, but then there would have been no self-sacrifice, no Love magic, and no story.) Dumbledore is saying that Voldemort, a Half-Blood, identified with another Half-Blood rather than with the Pure-Blood Longbottom child, perhaps because he secretly felt discriminated against (cf. Severus Snape calling himself "the Half-Blood Prince"). I'm quite sure that he hated his own Muggle blood as well as his Muggle father, which fueled his hatred of Muggle-borns and his youthful desire to "carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble work" and "purge the school of all who were unworthy to attend it." Here he was, the greatest Dark wizard in a century, more powerful than the pure-bloods he recruited as followers. It's no surprise to me that, despite his seeming to spout pure-blood supremacy and encouraging his followers to do so, he never targets Half-Bloods. Snape, another Half-Blood, is a trusted lieutenant (big mistake, LV), rising to the position formerly held by the pure-blood Lucius Malfoy. Dumbledore, "the only one [Voldemort] ever feared, is also a Half-Blood (his mother was a Muggle0born). After his takeover of the MoM, Voldemort allows Half-Bloods to attend Hogwarts; it's only Muggle-borns (and "Muggle lovers" like Charity Burbage) who are hunted and imprisoned or killed. (He also deplores or pretends to deplore the shedding of Wizard blood, including the many Half-Bloods attending Hogwarts in that proclamation.) As I said before, Muggle-borns have no Muggle "blood" because their parents are Muggles. Consequently, having one as a parent is no different, from the perspective of Voldemort and his followers, than having a Muggle as a parent. (Lucius Malfoy refers to Hermione in CoS as "a girl of no wizard family," meaning that she has no Wizarding "blood." And, of course, Lucius later plants Riddle's diary in Ginny's cauldron, knowing that it's designed to rid the school of that undesirable element, with the apparent certainty that those Muggle-lovers, Albus Dumbledore and Arthur Weasley, would be disgraced as further benefits of his plan.) Carol, noting that it's necessary to think as Voldemort does, in terms of "blood" rather than magical ability, in order to follow his thought process (which, perhaps, does not qualify as logic) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 00:24:34 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:24:34 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180563 Carol earlier: > > As I said before, Muggle-borns have no Muggle "blood" because their parents are Muggles. Carol again: Right, Carol. Obviously Muggle-borns have no Muggle "blood." I meant no Wizarding "blood," of course. Carol, wasting a post because she couldn't let that one go uncorrected From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 11 01:04:09 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:04:09 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180564 > Mike: > I wasn't really interested in nuance from Voldemort, I just wanted to > be scared of him throughout. Pippin: I think Fudge is the first to state, in PoA, that without his followers Voldemort is not dangerous. The really scary thing about LV is his ability to organize and direct the disaffected elements of the WW in a unified assault on the Ministry. I can't imagine Giants, dementors, purebloods and werewolves deciding to work together on their own. If you think about it, that makes Voldemort a lot scarier, and a lot more like the dangerous dictators of the real world. Mike: > and I never saw him doing any prodigious feats of magic, something > that would justify his immense and frightening reputation as the > brilliant, uber powerful, evil wizard of the age. Pippin: That he could duel on a level with Dumbledore would be enough to scare most wizards silly, IMO. Slughorn, Kingsley and McGonagall together couldn't finish him, even with his powers weakened by Harry's protective spell. JKR doesn't give us the spectacle of battle, I agree. I'm pretty sure she could, but since she could hardly depict the horror of war as it truly is to young readers, I think she wanted to avoid the impression that it's glorious. > > Betsy Hp: > > So I assumed that the deep stuff would come from Harry's > > interaction with the actual antagonists of his story: Slytherin. > > Mike: > Would have been fine with me. It's what I expected too. Pippin: The actual antagonist of the story, IMO, is Harry. Voldemort and Slytherin are only mirrors. Harry's great struggles are with himself; with his feelings of helplessness, weakness, anger and loss. Beating the bad guys just proves he's really over it. Seeing Harry's changed feelings about Scrimgeour as the explanation of his feelings about Snape suddenly made me see why Snape's loyalties, like Dumbledore's betrayal, were as nothing. If *you* only had an hour to live, would you want to spend it feeling guilty? or betrayed? What Harry discovered was not how to forgive but that, just as life was too short to spend buried in the misery of grief, it was too short to spend finding fault with others -- or himself. That's where the life lesson is, IMO. It doesn't *matter* whether your hate is justified or not -- either way, life is too short for it. Mike: > As for Slytherin as a whole, all I really wanted was for them to > realize that this stupid pure-blood mania got them where they were, > caught in the Voldemort web of deceit. But, like you said about > Harry, the Slytherins didn't seem to learn anything either. In any > case, 99% of the Slytherin students didn't suffer any repercussions > for those beliefs. Pippin: I don't like the idea of punishing people for their beliefs, no matter how wrong-headed they are. Anyway, how often do true believers actually change their minds? I expect most of the real bloodists were bloodists to the day they died -- but people who didn't have any personal allegiance to the bloodist cause, which was probably most of Slytherin, no longer were under any pressure to pretend they did. Slughorn, Regulus and Snape all "got it" -- but the whole point for Harry is to realize that people he doesn't like, or wouldn't have liked if he'd known them when they were alive, are not thereby capable of the worst he can imagine. That he might actually have liked them, if he'd met them under different circumstances, as he liked The Half-blood Prince, is beside the point. What I find telling is the contrast between Harry's first impression of Slytherins, "Perhaps it was his imagination, after all he'd heard about Slytherin, but he thought they looked an unpleasant lot" and his last, where the only thing he particularly notices about Draco is that he's going bald. He no longer looks at Slytherins and imagines things. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 02:23:29 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:23:29 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180565 Carol earlier: > > This confrontation was one of my favorite moments in DH, especially when Harry accuses Lupin of feeling like a daredevil and imitating Sirius. The implication seems to be that Lupin is tempting death, as Sirius did not only by going to the Mom but by fighting Bellatrix on the dais of the Veil. Lupin, he's suggesting, wants to die spectularly, too, with the difference being that this suicide by recklessness would in his case be supremely irresponsible and cowardly because it would be a way of freeing himself of the burden of caring for his wife and child while looking like a brave soldier dying for the cause of the WW. JKR, I think, is speaking through Harry in calling Lupin a coward, and Lupin, though he storms out, apparently comes to share this view, as indicated by his behavior in later chapters. Yes, Lupin is an adult and was his teacher, but Lupin is wrong in this instance, and Harry is right to tell him so, IMO. Lupin chose to marry Tonks and to father a child with her; now he has to pay the consequences, one of which is to think of others before he thinks of himself. I think that JKR is saying that Marauder-style recklessness was bad enough when it endangered the people of Hogsmeade; in this instance, it would endanger Lupin's own family by depriving them of his protection. True bravery isn't rushing heedlessly into danger; it's facing the consequences of your own actions without running away. > a_svirn replied: > Well, I can understand marrying-and-facing-consequences bit, but the suicide theory is a pure conjecture, I think. There was nothing in the chapter to suggest that Lupin actively sought death. No had Sirius, really. And as for leaving his family without protection, it simply wasn't the case. Lupin stated the obvious when he said that they would be much safer without him. Just like they were safer without Ted Tonks. > Carol again: This post is a revised version of my offlist response to a-svirn (who still doesn't agree with me ). The "suicide" idea was my interpretation of Harry's reaction. He said that Lupin was trying to be a bit of a daredevil and step into Sirius's shoes. Both Harry and Lupin know how that worked out; daredevil Sirius ended up dead, partly as the result of the same recklessness that had endangered the people of Hogsmeade when they were teenagers and led to Sirius's twelve-year imprisonment for a crime he didn't commit. Lupin, of course, was also reckless as a Marauder, but recklessness isn't a key component of his personality, which is generally rather cautious and secretive. (His concealment of key information from DD in PoA for selfish reasons, which was cowardly rather than reckless, and his rushing out without his potion, though certainly reckless in retrospect, was uncharacteristic.) I'm not denying that Lupin sometimes shows courage (fighting in the Battle of Hogwarts so his baby son can live in a better world being the best example), but offering to protect HRH when his presence would add to their danger (not only is he being hunted as an undesirable, but he turns into a werewolf once a month) is not going to help them. You state that Lupin would place his wife and unborn child in the same danger as Ted Tonks would have done by remaining with them, but I don't think so. Yes, he's a hunted man, but they can be hidden by the Order (as happens later--and should have happened with Ted Tonks as well, IMO), and, yes, he turns into a werewolf once a month, but Tonks is an Auror, which requires a NEWT in Potions. If anyone besides Snape could learn to brew Wolfsbane Potion, she could--and must have done so, considering that she survived to give birth to her child, and the baby himself seems to have lived at least a month with his father (the timeframe of those last few chapters being a bit fuzzy). To return to the scene at 12 GP, I think that Harry sees Lupin as looking for a means of escape from his family responsibilities, whether it's death protecting the Chosen One (a la Sirius) or merely going on an adventure with HRH (again, a desire more characteristic of Sirius, who seemed to view Harry as a surrogate James, than of the more reserved Remus, whose failures to act are more conspicuous than his actions, IMO. At any rate, his wish to abandon his wife and son to accompany HRH (and find out what they're up to) is very different from his choice to fight in the battle of Hogwarts to make a better world for his son (whom he isn't abandoning in that instance; he's leaving him in the good care of his mother-in-law and, he thinks, of his wife). *That's* not a suicide wish; that's a man defending what he believes in (Lupin at his best, and we don't even get to see him!). But following HRH to do he doesn't know what rather than staying home with the wife who loves and needs him (he can't, unfortunately, go out and earn a living, which is one cause of his distress or depression or whatever it is, but he can provide her emotional support at a stressful time in her life) is just, as Harry points out, irresponsible and reckless. "Parents shouldn't leave their kids unless--unless they've got to," says Harry. In the end, Lupin does have to leave his newborn son to protect and preserve the world his son will live in and help to destroy a terrible enemy. But at 12 GP, he *doesn't* have to leave his unborn child. There is not yet a battle to join, and if he dies because he's chosen to "protect" Harry, he will have left that child a half-orphan for no good reason. He's afraid that the child will be like him and ignores the fact that such a child would need a loving father even more than a normal child. Carol, snipping the part about Ted Tonks, which I answered offlist From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 03:38:53 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:38:53 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - All Powerful & Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180566 > Pippin: > I think Fudge is the first to state, in PoA, that without his > followers Voldemort is not dangerous. Mike: Not looking up the quote, relying on memory, I think Fudge said that Voldemort alone was bad enough, but give him back his most loyal supporters and the WW would be in real trouble again - akin to VWI, I suspect. I don't think Fudge was giving the impression that Voldemort wasn't scary without his crew. Just with his supporters, he would have the ability to spread his destruction over a wider world. > Pippin: > The really scary thing about LV is his ability to organize and > direct the disaffected elements of the WW in a unified assault > on the Ministry. I can't imagine Giants, dementors, purebloods > and werewolves deciding to work together on their own. If you > think about it, that makes Voldemort a lot scarier, and a lot > more like the dangerous dictators of the real world. Mike: But Pippin, this is a book about magic and wizards and such. The WW is supposed to be more powerful and hence more deadly than the Muggle world. I wanted a Voldemort that exemplified those great and terrible things that Ollivander warned me about. I wanted him worse than those dictators you speak of. The other side has magic too, remember. And as the bad guys, I expected that they had no compunctions against using those spells that Dumbledore was too noble to use. I wanted to see those spells, I wanted something to have come from Voldemort's world travels. I expected to be scared of more than Voldemort's organizational skills. How staid is that? > Pippin: > That he could duel on a level with Dumbledore would be enough to > scare most wizards silly, IMO. Slughorn, Kingsley and McGonagall > together couldn't finish him, even with his powers weakened by > Harry's protective spell. See, that's the thing, I never doubted that Voldemort was powerful, capable of holding his own against Dumbledore. With all his build up I half expected he could have beaten Dumbledore using spells that Dumbledore wouldn't use or spells DD didn't know how to counter. That he couldn't did not make me think he was not powerful. But scary?! I'm sorry, but holding him in the background for two books diminished his magical omniscience and personal formidability in my eyes. Supposedly he scared all the students silly by his booming voice while they were in the Great hall. Gee, we saw Ludo Bagman use Sonorous in GoF. We were supposed to be scared because he was "Voldemort", but he didn't *do* anything that would inform that type of all encompassing fear, not that I saw. > Pippin: > The actual antagonist of the story, IMO, is Harry. Voldemort > and Slytherin are only mirrors. Harry's great struggles are with > himself; with his feelings of helplessness, weakness, anger and > loss. Beating the bad guys just proves he's really over it. Mike: Now wait a sec, Harry is both the protagonist and antagonist? I don't give Harry as much credit as you do. I have a hard time seeing Harry's defeat of Voldemort as a metaphor for him overcoming his inner demons. I don't see the story written that *deep*. I don't see Harry learning that about himself. YMMV and obviously does. > Pippin: > That's where the life lesson is, IMO. It doesn't *matter* whether > your hate is justified or not -- either way, life is too short for > it. Mike: It's a nice sentiment, Pippin, but I don't see as how it applies in this series. That is, I don't see it being a thematic undercurrent in this story other than how a general truism would apply to any story. > > Mike previously: > > In any case, 99% of the Slytherin students > > didn't suffer any repercussions for those beliefs. > > Pippin: > I don't like the idea of punishing people for their beliefs, no > matter how wrong-headed they are. Mike again: Yes, you're right, repercussion is the wrong word. What I should have said was that I wanted to see some realization from the Slytherins, that pure-bloodism is wrong. I was left to guess and hope that it happened, but not one Slyhterin student was shown to harbor any remorse for blindly following a false and destructive credo. > Pippin: > Anyway, how often do true believers > actually change their minds? I expect most of the real bloodists > were bloodists to the day they died -- but people who didn't have > any personal allegiance to the bloodist cause, which was probably > most of Slytherin, no longer were under any pressure to pretend > they did. Mike: So says you, and so hopes I. But where did you read that in the final book? I *thought* I was going to get that from Draco. I suspected that Pansy, Goyle, and others wouldn't change. They would be your "true believers". But the other Slytherins...? Didn't hear a peep out of them, did we? > Pippin: > Slughorn, Regulus and Snape all "got it" -- but the whole point > for Harry is to realize that people he doesn't like, or wouldn't > have liked if he'd known them when they were alive, are not > thereby capable of the worst he can imagine. Mike: Sorry Pippin, it's just not good enough. I think it was Steve that said that he needed someone from Harry's generation, just one, to show that some of the Slytherins *got it*. Otherwise, how can we know that the poisonous atmosphere inside of Slytherin House has changed? Slughorn is not going to convince his students, that's even if he stays at that "pestilential school" and stays as Slyth's HoH. The other two are dead, whose going to be the force for change inside the Slytherin common room? > Pippin: > What I find telling is the contrast between Harry's first > impression of Slytherins, "Perhaps it was his imagination, after > all he'd heard about Slytherin, but he thought they looked an > unpleasant lot" and his last, where the only thing he particularly > notices about Draco is that he's going bald. Mike: Yes, that is to Harry's credit. But how do you know that Draco wasn't looking back at Harry and co. and thinking; "lousy half-bloods, mudbloods, and blood traitors. They'll get theirs some day."? I would hope not, but the last line we got from Draco was him whimpering to a Death Eater, "I'm on your side." That's how we're left with it, plus our imagination and interpretation. That may be enough for some, not enough for others. Personally, I would have felt better about it if I'd gotten Steve's "one Slytherin". Mike From greatraven at hotmail.com Fri Jan 11 04:30:46 2008 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:30:46 -0000 Subject: The Sorting Hat - still there? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180567 Did I miss something in my reading or what? Nineteen years after Voldemort destroyed the Sorting Hat, it's still there, sorting kids into Houses. Did it get repaired, somehow? Did they make a new one - and if so, was it like the old one in taking note of student preferences? Or was it just another piece of text that wasn't edited? :-) Just wondering. Sue From Meliss9900 at aol.com Fri Jan 11 04:53:52 2008 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:53:52 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Sorting Hat - still there? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180568 In a message dated 1/10/2008 10:31:18 P.M. Central Standard Time, greatraven at hotmail.com writes: Did I miss something in my reading or what? Nineteen years after Voldemort destroyed the Sorting Hat, it's still there, sorting kids into Houses. Did it get repaired, somehow? Did they make a new one - and if so, was it like the old one in taking note of student preferences? Or was it just another piece of text that wasn't edited? :-) Just wondering. Sue I think that it was still the same one. It had probably had some kind of impervious charm cast on it waaaay back in the Founder's day. Melissa **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 06:56:02 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:56:02 -0000 Subject: JKR's lesson on prejudice (was:Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180569 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > Montavilla47: > > Hehe. Well, it isn't Prejudice so much as Pride, right? I'm > headdesking > > right now because I never realized the Harry/Draco = Elizabeth/Darcy > > connection before. > > > > No wonder people slash Harry/Draco! > > > > I wonder if Jane Austen had produced Pride and Prejudice as a > > serial novel if people would have been outraged when Elizabeth > > got together with Darcy at the end instead of whatshisname. > > > > And if anyone would have written fanfics in which Darcy was > > conveniently killed off, or else shown to be a wife-beater.... > > a_svirn: > Yeah, but Darcy and Elisabeth had each of them some of both, whereas > in this case all prejudice seems to be on Draco's side and all pride > on Harry's ... > > As for fanfics, they not only write them, but even publish and sell > them openly in the bookstores. I saw with my own disbelieving > eyes: "Mr Darcy Takes a Wife" (with a rather suggestive picture on > the front cover) and another one, something about Mr Darcy's > daughters. > > a_svirn > Montavilla47: I know. I was kind of bummed because I couldn't get a copy of a Pride and Prejudice story written by Joan Aiken. What can you say? People love those characters and want more of them. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 06:59:49 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:59:49 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Sorting Hat - still there? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0801102259s15c688efr5352bf01bf98f6d9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180570 Its a magical hat. Why wouldn't it still be there? Having lasted from the time of the founders, its probably been through a lot more than just what Lord Thingy did to it. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 07:12:10 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:12:10 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478716CA.2070306@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180571 > Magpie: > The moment just doesn't read as ambiguous to me in any way. > > Carol: > Not *to you*, but it does read as ambiguous to others. > not only because those kids had no way to contact their parents, > nor did Slughorn No? I would think apparation and the power of two would guarantee word would spread almost instantaneously. All it takes is one student apparating back home to raise the alarm, and within a matter of minutes parents would be apparating back and forth across Great Britain before descending en masse on Hogwarts. I don't have the text in front of me, but I'm sure at least an hour had passed between the Slytherins' dismissal and Slughorn's return. > At any rate, let's look again at the canon that we're interpreting > differently, not to prove that you're wrong and I'm right but to show > that both interpretations (and that's all they are) are valid. For myself, that it is technically possible to squeeze returning Slytherins in between the lines of the text just isn't good enough. A point this important deserves more than just an ambiguous turn of phrase. How difficult would it have been for JKR to have inserted "and half the seventh year Slytherins" into her description? Imagine the difference those six words would have made? This just isn't, to my mind, a point that deserves to be left to inference. CJ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 07:54:24 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:54:24 -0000 Subject: The Sorting Hat - still there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180572 --- "sbursztynski" wrote: > > Did I miss something in my reading or what? Nineteen years > after Voldemort destroyed the Sorting Hat, it's still there, > sorting kids into Houses. Did it get repaired, somehow? Did > they make a new one - and if so, was it like the old one > in taking note of student preferences? Or was it just another > piece of text that wasn't edited? :-) > > Just wondering. > Sue > bboyminn: The Sorting Hat was set aflame, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was burn, and it certainly doesn't mean it was destroyed. Remember when Dumbledore first met Tom Riddle at the orphanage, he set the wardrobe aflame. Yet it wasn't burned or harmed in anyway. Now, it might have been singed a little, but I think that was the extent of the damage. No reason to think it wasn't available for the next and many more sortings. Steve/bboyminn From wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au Fri Jan 11 10:25:25 2008 From: wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au (Lesley McKenna) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:25:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Sorting Hat - still there? Message-ID: <823269.89703.qm@web59108.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180573 --- "sbursztynski" wrote: > Did I miss something in my reading or what? Nineteen years > after Voldemort destroyed the Sorting Hat, it's still there, > sorting kids into Houses. Did it get repaired, somehow? Did > they make a new one - and if so, was it like the old one > in taking note of student preferences? Or was it just another > piece of text that wasn't edited? :-) My interpretation of why the sorting hat didn't burn was the same reason Neville wasn't burnt. I think it is because the Elder wand wasn't working properly for Voldemort. None of his spells lasted. First of all, he couldn't kill Harry. That was partly due to his having Harry's blood in his veins and the wand not working. He couldn't keep the crowd quiet when he cast a ssilencing charm at them. and the hat didn't burn, nor did Neville. Just my interpretation. Lesley/wrappedinharry From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 14:29:30 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:29:30 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180574 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I think it was Sydney who described Voldemort as more a force of > > nature or a monster than an actual antagonist for Harry. He's > > not a character we were supposed to look at for any kind of depth > > or nuance (our peep into his childhood made that quite clear). > >>Mike: > I wasn't really interested in nuance from Voldemort, I just wanted > to be scared of him throughout. > > And then he ... nothing! For two books he wasn't scary at all. > > I needed Voldemort to *be* that "force of nature", as Sydney put > it, to justify the fear that he engendered in the WW. For me, LV > didn't live up to his billing or his build up. Betsy Hp: I completely agree. Which is why his defeat in the end wasn't all that climatic for me. I suspect (though of course, this is just a guess) that Voldemort became diminished because JKR tried to shoehorn him into the antagonist role. Instead of spitting out so much information on Voldemort in ready-made, tv-dinner servings, I think it'd have been better to have him be this growing force in the background. It's a pretty standard rule of thumb in horror-stories: don't give the audience a clear picture of your monster. Let their imaginations do a lot of your work for you. [This is a bit of an aside but: How cool would it have been if Dumbledore had been incapacitated in the *beginning* of HBP (worsen his injury or something) and Harry forced to figure out Voldemort's background on his own? Especially if the Tom Riddle=Voldemort connection was played like it *wasn't* common knowledge? The creepiness of getting a clearer and clearer picture of a beast you're really not all that eager to see... Oh! But don't *kill* Dumbledore, just have him be really, really sick and maybe needing to be tucked away in his tower for protection or something. That way Draco could still have *his* task (It's an injured old man, boy. Surely you can finish him off while I keep dear old mummy company?) and then both Harry and Draco would mirror each other's growing desperation...] > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > So Voldemort didn't need to be all that interesting, but the way > > to defeat him should have been. > > > >>Mike: > Voldemort's intelligence and magical abilities needed to be more > interesting than they were shown to be, imo. I needed to know that > the Horcruxes weren't the only reason why he was still alive. His > ability to fly without a broom wasn't enough. Betsy Hp: God, the flying thing was *so* lame... But I do agree, and I think we're saying the same thing. I meant "interesting" as in nuanced or multi-layered, which I don't think Voldemort needed to be (madness would be enough: power-hungry or bent on destroying all muggleborns or the WW or something). But yes, Voldemort's *abilities*, his power and stratigic skill needed to be horrifyingly formidable. (Clever enough to get Dumbledore locked in his tower, right? Like I suggest above? I mean, that'd have been cool to have a villain that *Dumbledore* seemed unable to out-think. Especially when this mere boy is our last hope of victory.) And again, we wouldn't need to get a clear look at Voldemort's powers. Just have people disappearing, families slaughtering each other for no apparent reason, news like that trickling into Hogwarts so Harry really feels a ticking clock (Voldemort needs to be stopped *now*) and also, really, really scared. > >>Mike: > Then those "life's lessons" would have been important for Harry to > learn. Then Harry would have to come up with a unique way of > defeating Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: Exactly! Because it wouldn't be magical skill (that would be the low point where Harry realizes he's not going to out-magic this guy) and not even overly clever stratagies (Dumbledore barely able to hold his own), instead it'd be doing something that hadn't been done for *generations*: Unite the houses of Hogwarts. And yes, that *includes* Slytherin. Oh! And then we might have gotten an interesting look at the Founders, too. Why the rift, etc? Have each member of a different house have a piece of the puzzle that if only the houses had *talked* to each other before this wouldn't have happened, but they are now, and Harry can take what he's learned and defeat the monster in an angle no one thought to explore because of past traditions and entrenchments. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I'm thrilled with the amount of agreement we have going on, > > Mike! > > Also, I'm curious: what did you want to see with Slytherin? > > Obviously, I was hoping for a redemptive arc, but what were you > > looking for? A bigger show down? (Honestly, I think I'd have > > preferred that to the whimper Slytherin ended with.) > >>Mike: > It wasn't so much *with* Slytherin, for me, as it was with Snape > and even moreso with Draco. > > I just thought there should have been more interaction between > Snape and Harry than Harry collecting Snape's thoughts while > he's in his death throes. Snape was too delicious of a character > for his big reveal to be post mortem. > But Draco was the biggest disappointment. What happened to that kid > that was lowering his wand on the Astronomy tower? > > As for Slytherin as a whole, all I really wanted was for them to > realize that this stupid pure-blood mania got them where they were, > caught in the Voldemort web of deceit. > Betsy Hp: I agree! Seriously, for me, Draco and Snape were the "face" of Slytherin. That they didn't get redeemed in the end, that Harry never really saw them as people (that name thing doesn't work for me, too little, too late, too lame), and that *they* never got a chance to change was the biggest failure of the books, IMO. But yes, have Harry get some ideas about Snape and his mother *before* the guy is dead and Harry's so over him it doesn't even cause a blip. Once Dumbledore was dead, push him off the damn stage and put Snape in the spot-light. He's the more interesting character anyway. And get Draco off the darn Tower. Good Lord, but that was a scene that went absolutely no where. As negated as the big scene where Lucius *doesn't* buy Draco the hand of glory. Force Harry and Draco to work together for a similar goal (defeat Voldemort), and let them have their different reasons, and let Draco realize that it's not just Voldemort's methods that are questionable. I'd have loved a scene where either Nott or Blaise are all Death Eater crazy and want to butcher Hermione (ooh, and maybe some muggleborn firsties to up the emotion quotia) or something and Draco's all, "*Kill* them!?! I just wanted to keep them out of the damn club, you freaks." And then, you know, moment of realization that this is where it all leads. (Plus, Draco would fall all *over* tv, you know he would. "How could a people that make such wonderful things, be bad?") And then Draco would get his prefect of Slytherin on and deliver a stirring speech or something (though maybe the "you freaks" thing would be it) and several Slytherins would join with him and ultimately Harry (who'd get his own speech, but directed to all four houses) and Voldemort would go down. ::sigh:: Alas, we got the Elder Wand. > >>Mike, who doesn't have the same regrets for the series that Betsy > has and still doesn't think the message was evil, but is seeing > more and more her side of the story. Who says the story's over and > there's nothing left to discuss? ;) Betsy Hp: Evil was my original and emotional reaction. I do think they encourage bigotry, but through ignorance rather than purpose, and I also think a certain amount of moral... laziness I suppose, is on display. I feel like JKR raised some interesting dilemmas and than failed to examine them. Which was too bad. Betsy Hp (everytime I think I'm through discussing, something pulls me back in. *g*) From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 11 14:53:27 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:53:27 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180575 "pippin_999" wrote: > > Chapter Discussions: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 11, The Bribe Potioncat: Great job Pippin! I've started out by adding comments to the summary. > Remus looks exhausted, but pleased to see them. He explains that he had to apparate very > carefully onto the top step to avoid being seen. DE's are keeping watch on every location ?? associated with the Order. Potioncat: I thought this bit of magical information was a nice set up. It allowed for the Trio's comings and goings and for the incident with Hermione and the DE-whose-name-I-can't-remember. > > Lupin says he would have come sooner, but there's been a DE tailing him. He's very > disturbed to hear that the DE's found Harry at Tottenham Court Road. He doesn't believe > the trace could possibly be still active, or the DE's would know that Harry was at ?? Grimmauld Place. Potioncat: So it is not yet common knowledge that LV put a charm on his name. I recall some fan comments later on Ron's explanation after his return (much later in the book.) Do we ever find out how Ron learned of it? > > QUESTIONS: > 1. It seems the DE's learned where the house must be and that it belongs to Harry, but not > that it was once headquarters of the Order. Did you think this was a clue to Snape's true > loyalties? Or did you think the tongue-tying curse was adequate to keep Snape from ?? talking? Potioncat: The FC is very confusing. Now that Order members are SK in turn, or all at once, it's really surprising no one told under the interrogation. I'm not sure what I thought at the time, I was a bit confused that the DEs knew enough to hang around the house, but couldn't get in. So, I suppose they figured out Harry owned the house. The fact that they didn't get in made me feel Snape was on Harry's side, but, I was grasping for anything to prove that Snape was not really LV's man. > > 2. Does Harry's reaction to Scrimgeour's death hint at his reaction to learning the truth ?? about Snape? Potioncat: It does now. I felt bad at having not liked the man before, and I realized he deserved respect. But, it was one more "hint" that we would get a reversal of Slytherin House---but I don't want to re-open that can of worms! > > > 4. Does the general mistrust in the wizarding community and the surveillance and torture ?? of Order members go far enough to explain the lack of resistance to Voldemort's coup? Potioncat: No. I think JKR is very, very good at writing the small story, but not so good at the big picture. For example, I would have thought the Order members would have "disappeared", or been openly killed. It's hard to believe that none of the Order members from the 7 Potters incident were harmed after LV came into control. > > > 6. What do you think of Lupin's reasons for wanting to leave his family? Given earlier > hints in canon that Lupin is an occlumens, is his apparent lack of feeling for Tonks ?? only a pretense, or is he truly indifferent? Potioncat: I thought he was a Legilimens, though I think Carol is right that it was never stated in canon, just hinted at. There are two areas of the HP4GU list that have taken me by surprise. The first was the number of members who detest Molly; and the other is the number who agree with Harry about Lupin. He's an Englishman and his country has been taken over--and he's supposed to stay home so he can get ice cream when Dora has a craving? I understand why he would want to be in the action. I'm sure Lupin didn't expect the Trio were going on a long camping trip. I would have liked to have seen some evidence that Lupin and the Order were doing something. > > 8. On a lighter note, I think this is at least the seventh time that canon refers to Umbridge ?? as a hag. Could she actually be one? Potioncat: Yeah, well, no. But I think someone should complain about the insult to Hags! > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 15:46:45 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:46:45 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180576 1. It seems the DE's learned where the house must be and that it belongs to Harry, but not that it was once headquarters of the Order. Did you think this was a clue to Snape's true loyalties? Or did you think the tongue-tying curse was adequate to keep Snape from talking? Alla: LOL, I read spoilers before I read the book, so I was not surprised at Snape's loyalties at least few days in advance. 2. Does Harry's reaction to Scrimgeour's death hint at his reaction to learning the truth about Snape? Alla: Beatifully spotted, I think so yes. 3. The DE's were able to force their way past the protections put on the other safe houses. Did you expect this and did it make you feel any differently about the value of the blood protection at Privet Drive? Alla: Not really. I did not see DE **trying** to attack Privet Drive, that is why I am still uneasy about this so supposedly great blood protection. 4. Does the general mistrust in the wizarding community and the surveillance and torture of Order members go far enough to explain the lack of resistance to Voldemort's coup? Alla: I think JKR was going for Voldemort spreading out massive fear. I do not know if it worked well enough for me. 5. Harry accuses Lupin both of feeling a bit of a daredevil and of being a coward. What is Rowling saying about the relationship between recklessness and true bravery? Alla: I touched on my thoughts on Lupin upthread, but here I am not sure she is saying anything on this relationship. I think one can be reckless and very brave as well. 6. What do you think of Lupin's reasons for wanting to leave his family? Given earlier hints in canon that Lupin is an occlumens, is his apparent lack of feeling for Tonks only a pretense, or is he truly indifferent? Alla: I **hope** that he is truly indifferent, I really do and Goodness know Tonks and people around him were forceful enough, but for goodness sake Remus if you do not love her, be a man and NOT marry her. Tell them all and Molly first and foremost to go jump in the lake and leave you alone. Sigh. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Fri Jan 11 15:57:42 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:57:42 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - All Powerful & Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180577 > Mike: > > But Pippin, this is a book about magic and wizards and such. The WW is supposed to be more powerful and hence more deadly than the Muggle world. I wanted a Voldemort that exemplified those great and terrible things that Ollivander warned me about. I wanted him worse than those dictators you speak of. The other side has magic too, remember. And as the bad guys, I expected that they had no compunctions against using those spells that Dumbledore was too noble to use. I wanted to see those spells, I wanted something to have come from Voldemort's world travels. I expected to be scared of more than Voldemort's organizational skills. How staid is that? Tiffany: I agree that LV didn't exactly scare me in DH like he did in SS. I'll always respect a flair for the dramatic because I've got that also, but I just wasn't too impressed by his decision making later on in the series. He let his ego get in the way far too often when making these wonderful plans of his. I expected LV to be a great & powerful wizard that we were told about more often. I will give him credit though for his knowledge of the dark arts & black magic. However, that in itself isn't too much in the WW if it's all you've got to offer. From dukelover_0890 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 19:16:43 2008 From: dukelover_0890 at yahoo.com (dukelover_0890) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:16:43 -0000 Subject: The Sorting Hat - still there? In-Reply-To: <823269.89703.qm@web59108.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180578 Lesley: > My interpretation of why the sorting hat didn't burn was the > same reason Neville wasn't burnt. I think it is because the > Elder wand wasn't working properly for Voldemort. None of his > spells lasted. First of all, he couldn't kill Harry. That was > partly due to his having Harry's blood in his veins and the > wand not working. He couldn't keep the crowd quiet when he > cast a ssilencing charm at them. and the hat didn't burn, > nor did Neville. I agree with Lesley, since Voldemort wasn't the master of the wand it didn't work properly for him. Maybe the hat has a protection charm itself. How else could it have lasted all these years with out actually becoming shreds. Cherry From dukelover_0890 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 19:08:01 2008 From: dukelover_0890 at yahoo.com (dukelover_0890) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:08:01 -0000 Subject: Chapter 10 discussions In-Reply-To: <367270.4019.qm@web55114.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180579 > akh observes: > I would have agreed with you that Hermione seems unnaturally dense about this, had I not recently had a conversation with a very bright friend of mine who is just now reading the HP series (I'm loaning him my Bloomsbury edition volumes). He has finished book 6 and has NO IDEA who RAB is. He won't let me tell him (rightfully so), but I was considerably taken aback that he has neither connected RAB with Regulus, nor has he made the connection between the locket found in Grimmauld Place and the horcrux. Cherry: Well I can see where Hermione and the others wouldn't pick up on who RAB is because they should know many characters that we don't because it is their world not ours. We only associated Regulus Black with RAB because he was the only character we knew that had those initails. Plus if you think about it, in most books a character isn't mentioned unless they have a little bit of importance in the book. I mean if someone gave the initials of a person that you talked about in a casual situation and the name didn't mean much to you because you didn't know this person. Would it stick with you if you had to guess the name? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 22:00:41 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:00:41 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: <478716CA.2070306@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180580 Magpie: > > The moment just doesn't read as ambiguous to me in any way. > > > > Carol: > > Not *to you*, but it does read as ambiguous to others. > > > not only because those kids had no way to contact their parents, > Lee responded: > No? I would think apparation and the power of two would guarantee word would spread almost instantaneously. All it takes is one student apparating back home to raise the alarm, and within a matter of minutes parents would be apparating back and forth across Great Britain before descending en masse on Hogwarts. Carol again: You can't Apparate from Hogwarts or its grounds. The only students who had the opportunity to Apparate home were those who went with Filch and Slughorn to the Hog's Head, that is, the Slytherins, the underage students from all the houses, and the Zach Smiths who chose not to fight. The students who stayed to fight had no such opportunity to contact their parents. Carol, who still does not count Harry's hurried guess at the identity of the crowd as a definitive interpretation, any more than I could identify the members of a crowd rushing onto a football field to celebrate a victory From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 22:28:35 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:28:35 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180581 > Carol again: > > This post is a revised version of my offlist response to a-svirn (who > still doesn't agree with me ). > > > You state that Lupin would place his wife and unborn child in the same > danger as Ted Tonks would have done by remaining with them, but I > don't think so. Yes, he's a hunted man, but they can be hidden by the > Order (as happens later--and should have happened with Ted Tonks as > well, IMO), and, yes, he turns into a werewolf once a month, but Tonks > is an Auror, which requires a NEWT in Potions. If anyone besides Snape > could learn to brew Wolfsbane Potion, she could--and must have done > so, considering that she survived to give birth to her child, and the > baby himself seems to have lived at least a month with his father (the > timeframe of those last few chapters being a bit fuzzy). a_svirn: There are two arguments in one, and it doesn't seem to me that they easily blend. As I said off-list I perfectly agree with you that Ted Tonk's flight doesn't make sense, since he could have been protected with Fidelius the same way the Weasleys were. However, for the plot purposes Rowling made him a danger to his family. If we are "to suspend our disbelief" and read the story as it's written we have to take her on her word. And her word is that he did place his family in danger (and was in one himself) because of his blood status. By the same token Lupin was at the very least an embarrassment (and very likely a danger as well) to *his* family, because of his status of a "half-bred". Whether Tonks could or could not brew Wolfsbane is immaterial ? it is not that kind of danger. It the danger of consorting with undesirables. > Carol: > To return to the scene at 12 GP, I think that Harry sees Lupin as > looking for a means of escape from his family responsibilities, > whether it's death protecting the Chosen One (a la Sirius) or merely > going on an adventure with HRH (again, a desire more characteristic of > Sirius, who seemed to view Harry as a surrogate James, than of the > more reserved Remus, whose failures to act are more conspicuous than > his actions, IMO. At any rate, his wish to abandon his wife and son to > accompany HRH (and find out what they're up to) is very different from > his choice to fight in the battle of Hogwarts to make a better world > for his son a_svirn: How? How it is different? Were Harry, Ron and Hernione going on some protracted World Tour? Was not their quest about defeating Voldemort and making a better world? > Carol: (whom he isn't abandoning in that instance; he's leaving > him in the good care of his mother-in-law and, he thinks, of his > wife). a_svirn: And before that he was leaving his child in whose care? Wolves? > Carol: *That's* not a suicide wish; that's a man defending what he > believes in (Lupin at his best, and we don't even get to see him!). > But following HRH to do he doesn't know what rather than staying home > with the wife who loves and needs him (he can't, unfortunately, go out > and earn a living, which is one cause of his distress or depression or > whatever it is, but he can provide her emotional support at a > stressful time in her life) is just, as Harry points out, > irresponsible and reckless. "Parents shouldn't leave their kids > unless--unless they've got to," says Harry. a_svirn: Harry was spouting platitudes, that's all there is to it. Men were leaving their wives pregnant and otherwise to go fighting from the dawn of time, and no one thought them cowards or suicidal. It does not even remotely resemble the Marauders outings at school (which weren't cowardly and suicidal either, though, of course they were reckless). And I really don't understand the argument about "following HRH to do what he doesn't know". He has been doing exactly that all his years in the Order. Every member of the order has been doing this very thing, because that was Dumbledore's style of leadership. Their motto, and certainly Lupins's motto was "it's not our business to know". Have they all been suicidal then? Or irresponsible? Personally, I think it was the rest of the order who were irresponsible, sitting on their butts and waiting for three seventeen- year-olds to do the entire job. At least, Lupin *tried* to do something. If it wasn't for his fractured relationship with Tonks his offer would have been perfectly reasonable. They could use help, and he was an asset in the Defence from the Dark Arts. Even his rather low self-esteem was an asset in this case, since he wouldn't mind taking orders from a teen-ager. Add to that that he really couldn't do anything to help his own family under the circumstances, and he was really an ideal choice. I am sure even Tonks herself would have agreed to that ? being an Auror and all. The only problem was that his decision was quite obviously one-sided, he didn't consult Tonks or asked her opinion. He couldn't face the consequences of his marriage ? which is of course, bad form. Still I'd say Harry had no business to insult him. Except, that it seemed to have worked for Lupin, so maybe he needed it. a_svirn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 22:34:08 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:34:08 -0000 Subject: The Sorting Hat - still there? In-Reply-To: <823269.89703.qm@web59108.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180582 "sbursztynski" wrote: > > > Did I miss something in my reading or what? Nineteen years after Voldemort destroyed the Sorting Hat, it's still there, sorting kids into Houses. > Lesley/wrappedinharry responded: > My interpretation of why the sorting hat didn't burn was the same reason Neville wasn't burnt. I think it is because the Elder wand wasn't working properly for Voldemort. None of his spells lasted. First of all, he couldn't kill Harry. That was partly due to his having Harry's blood in his veins and the wand not working. He couldn't keep the crowd quiet when he cast a ssilencing charm at them. and the hat didn't burn, nor did Neville. Carol adds: I'm pretty sure you're right. Here's the canon: "In one swift, fluid motion, Neville broke free of the Body-Bind Curse upon him; the flaming hat fell off him and he drew from its depths something silver, with a glittering, rubied handle" (DH Am. ed. 733). While JKR says nothing about the flames going out, it's pretty hard to draw a sword from the depths of a hat that has been consumed by flames. We don't know what happened to the Sorting Hat at that point because it's not mentioned. Neville lops off Nagini's head, the Centaurs charge, along with the Thestrals. In short, as the narrator states even before Slughorn and Charlie enter with reinforcements, "Chaos reigned" (734). The invisible Harry starts hitting DEs with jinxes and curses and casting Shield Charms to protect Voldemort's intended victims. Events are out of Voldemort's control. Once Harry becomes visible again, he taunts Voldemort: "Haven't you noticed that none of the spells you put on them are binding?" (738). If Voldemort can no longer torture or kill anyone, thanks to Harry' self-sacrifice (which also, apparently, greatly increases the power of Harry's own Shield Charms), the spell he used to burn the hat probably didn't work either, whether or not it had protective charms on it (and being such an important object, I suspect it die). Carol, who would have liked to see the slightly singed Sorting Hat on the table next to Neville, but thinks that we have enough information to draw the needed inference that it survived From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 22:47:17 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:47:17 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180583 a_svirn: Personally, I think it was the rest of the order who were irresponsible, sitting on their butts and waiting for three seventeen- year-olds to do the entire job. At least, Lupin *tried* to do something. If it wasn't for his fractured relationship with Tonks his offer would have been perfectly reasonable. Alla: Alla: That's the thing though ? his fractured relationship with Tonks to me makes **all** the difference. I want to know what his primary intention is ? to run away from his wife or to help Trio. I agree with you totally ? rest of the order was irresponsible, etc. But the thing is in my mind he IS running away from his wife and as means using the Trio. If he was leaving home happy wife, I mean, not happy that he is leaving, but happy otherwise, I would say SURE ? he is doing a right thing by wanting to help him. Leaving wife in the time of war ? not a problem, I totally understand. It is why he is leaving her is a problem for me and in "whys" I am inclined to agree with Harry. JMO, Alla From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 22:57:53 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:57:53 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180584 > Betsy Hp: > I completely agree. Which is why his defeat in the end wasn't all > that climatic for me. Mike: When I came to the end of "The Forest Again", knowing it was near the end of the book and purposedly not pre-reading the chapter titles, I thought Eggplant was getting his wish, Harry was going to die. I wasn't happy to have gotten a chapter like "King's Cross", but after that I knew Harry was going to vanquish Voldemort and live. So, yeah, both the defeat of Voldemort and Harry's survival were foregone conclusions by the start of the last chapter. But that's not to say I didn't enjoy that chapter, I actually enjoyed Harry talking smack to Riddle. I was more confused than enthused with the Elder Wand being the key to the final victory. Though I understand it now, I was a little miffed the first time through to reach the point of ultimate victory and have to say, "Huh? What just happened there?" > Betsy Hp: > Instead of spitting out so much information on Voldemort in > ready-made, tv-dinner servings, I think it'd have been better > to have him be this growing force in the background. It's a > pretty standard rule of thumb in horror-stories: don't give > the audience a clear picture of your monster. Let their > imaginations do a lot of your work for you. Mike: Hey Betsy, you're not old enough to remember TV dinners. But this does bring up the whole Riddle-exploration of HBP. It gave her readers a nice background story on whence came Voldemort, and introduced the Horcruxes as theme for the Trio's Travels in DH. But how did knowing Tom Riddle's story help Harry in actually defeating Voldemort? I'm asking in earnest. There seemed to be one heck of a lot of useless backstory in that book, useless to Harry, not for the reader. > Betsy Hp: > But I do agree, and I think we're saying the same thing. I meant > "interesting" as in nuanced or multi-layered, which I don't think > Voldemort needed to be (madness would be enough: power-hungry > or bent on destroying all muggleborns or the WW or something). > But yes, Voldemort's *abilities*, his power and stratigic > skill needed to be horrifyingly formidable. Mike: Yes! That's the kind of phrase I was looking for, "horrifyingly formidable." That's what he was at the end of GoF, for me. He lost that somewhere on the way to DH. He was no longer the Loki (of Norse mythology) that I so wanted him to be. > Betsy Hp: > > And again, we wouldn't need to get a clear look at Voldemort's > powers. Just have people disappearing, families slaughtering > each other for no apparent reason, news like that trickling into > Hogwarts so Harry really feels a ticking clock (Voldemort needs > be stopped *now*) and also, really, really scared. Mike: Heh, I'm afraid if we continue in this fanfic vein we might have to bring this over to OTC. I'll just say that you've captured the kind of "horrible formidability" I wanted Voldemort to retain. > Betsy Hp: > Exactly! Because it wouldn't be magical skill (that would be the > low point where Harry realizes he's not going to out-magic this > guy) and not even overly clever stratagies (Dumbledore barely able > to hold his own), instead it'd be doing something that hadn't been > done for *generations*: Unite the houses of Hogwarts. And yes, > that *includes* Slytherin. Mike: We've had this discussion before, about the use of magic. I've always wanted more, always thought that magic was the thing that made these books special for me. You are a different reader, magic was more of a vehicle for you and not as important to the overall story. Difference in taste, that's all. But it also let me enjoy DH more, because I got a lot of magic, and some newer magic at that. Still, I see your point about Harry not being able to out-magic Voldemort. (Heh, not that I gave a whit about uniting the houses). But it comes back to the theme of LV not being that formidable, so Harry *does* out-magic him in the end with master of the Elder Wand thing. > Betsy Hp: > Oh! And then we might have gotten an interesting look > at the Founders, too. Why the rift, etc? Mike: Yeah, whatever happened to this? The Bloody Baron killed his love, Helena Ravenclaw, that was it? I really wanted something more on Godric and Salazar. Wasn't that the theme of the first six books, the rift between Slytherin and Gryffindor continuing to this day? > Betsy Hp: > Seriously, for me, Draco and Snape were the "face" of Slytherin. > That they didn't get redeemed in the end, that Harry never > really saw them as people (that name thing doesn't work for me, > too little, too late, too lame), and that *they* never got a > chance to change was the biggest failure of the books, IMO. Mike: Redeemed wasn't as necessary for me as resolved was. I was sorry LOLLIPOPS was the ultimate answer for Snapes loyalties, I *thought* he was deeper than that. Nonetheless, his story was resolved imo. Draco, NO, his story was left hanging, imo. And after five books of cardboard cut-out Draco, to give him his own story line in HBP, only to drop that in the well,.....? > Betsy Hp: > Once Dumbledore was dead, push him off the damn stage and put > Snape in the spot-light. He's the more interesting character > anyway. Mike: YES, puhleeeze! Whatever happened to "Portraits can only regurgitate cliches. They are less realized than ghosts." ?? > Betsy Hp: > And get Draco off the darn Tower. Good Lord, but that was a > scene that went absolutely no where. Mike: Ditto! > Betsy Hp: > Force Harry and Draco to work together for a similar goal > (defeat Voldemort), and let them have their different reasons, > and let Draco realize that it's not just Voldemort's methods > that are questionable. Mike: OK, a little too much rewriting, but I understand and agree with your sentiment. I too wanted Draco to finish the story he started in HBP, and I never would have believed he was going to be friends with Harry. I had a hard time even seeing them become allies, not that I didn't want to see it happen. Instead, all I got was wimpering!Draco. :-P > Betsy Hp (everytime I think I'm through discussing, something > pulls me back in. *g*) Mike, cyberactively pulling a Tonks on Betsy's Lupin - "But I don't care either, I don't care!" - We'll never let you go, Betsy :Really big, humongous grin as he pulls on Betsy's hand dragging her back into Room of Requirement: From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 23:12:45 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:12:45 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180585 a_svirn wrote: > Whether Tonks could or could not brew Wolfsbane is > immaterial ? it is not that kind of danger. It the danger of > consorting with undesirables. How [is] it [Lupin's wish to abandon his wife and son to accompany HRH] different [from his choice to fight in the battle of Hogwarts]? Were Harry, Ron and Hernione going on some protracted World Tour? Was not their quest about defeating Voldemort and making a better world? > Personally, I think it was the rest of the order who were irresponsible, sitting on their butts and waiting for three seventeen- year-olds to do the entire job. At least, Lupin *tried* to do something. If it wasn't for his fractured relationship with Tonks his offer would have been perfectly reasonable. They could use help, and he was an asset in the Defence from the Dark Arts. > Carol responds; Lupin is imagining Tonks's giving birth to a half-werewolf cub, and running off with HRH would let him forget the consequences of his choice to marry and impregnate Tonks. He is denying his responsibility, which is not to protect three of-age wizards but to stay with his family until duty calls him to defend the WW, as in the Battle of Hogwarts. It's his being a werewolf (as well as his status as an "undesirable") that makes him a danger to HRH, more so than to his wife, herself an Auror and member of the Order. Surely, he would not have married her without making some sort of arrangements to protect her from his once-a-month transformations. The Trio have no such protection. Exactly how are they supposed to protect themselves *from Lupin* when their "protector" turns into a werewolf once a month? He can't stay in the tent with them on those nights. Where is he supposed to go? Should he roam the countryside, endangering the people of England so the Trio will be safe? Wouldn't the wanderings of a werewolf draw unwnated attention, in any case? It would be more dangerous by far, for all concerned (including Lupin himself) than roaming Hogsmeade in the company of two large Animagi and a rat. Obviously, Tonks and Lupin found some way to live together in peace, some way to protect and their unborn child from Lupin's "furry little problem." My best guess is that Auror Tonks prepared Wolfsbane Potion for her husband every month. Neither Lupin himself nor HRH had the knowledge or the means of doing so, nor should that additional burden have been forced upon them by Lupin's unneeded and unwanted companionship. (Also, of course, Harry had promised DD not to let anyone else, including Lupin, into the secret of the Horcruxes, and it would have been exceedingly difficult to keep it from him had he joined them. And if they cast Muffliato to keep him from overhearing their conversations, he'd have felt even more excluded and depressed.) Lupin did find a way to do *some* good, joining Lee and the others in the Pottercasts. Perhaps he and the other Order members did other things we don't know about before they went into hiding. (Mr. Weasley and Bill would have kept an eye on the MoM, for example.) But accompanying HRH and hindering their efforts by his mere presence was the last thing that a considerate and rational Lupin, a Lupin not consumed by guilt and depression, would have thought of doing. It's a shame that DD didn't bring both Lupin and Snape into the secret of the Horcruxes and let *them* destroy the bits of Voldie's soul while HRH attended Hogwarts (with no Elder Wand in the plot, :-) ). But to have Lupin staying with HRH, whether in 12 GP or on the camping trip, would have been worse than folly. His turning into a werewolf would either endanger them or give them away. Carol, who does not see Lupin's joining HRH as remotely comparable to fighting in the Battle of Hogwarts, which, fortunately or unfortunately for Lupin, did not coincide with the full moon From klewellen at shellworld.net Fri Jan 11 23:14:31 2008 From: klewellen at shellworld.net (Karen Lewellen) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:14:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180586 Honestly, I am unclear why so much focus is placed on Lupin's *real* motives, as if this was especially hidden. Track his character development. He has underneath all of his skill felt an outcast, indeed he found a place a sense of belonging with James and company, making him happier than ever because it was the closest thing to normal he had known. Enters into the picture a women who offers him something he never expected love and the willingness to spend the rest of his life, a life that he is not overly happy about himself, with him. Now it becomes a fight with his inner-devil. does she know what she is getting into? After a while with me will she want to run away from me too as she should? Does she have any idea what a child of ours might be? Do I really deserve this? Oh no better push this away before Tonks either wakes up and smells the blood, or gets hurt by him perhaps. The, I made a big mistake in marrying Tonks, is really, I must be crazy to think I can have this kind of normal life, better to hurt her emotionally than risk hurting her physically. So, like many focused on a weak self image, he thinks the best thing he can do is push her away, seem cold, when all he wants is for nothing to go wrong and this to be something normal and real and a home for him at least as he is, wolf and man. Harry's reminder of the possible stance of his unborn child, wakes him up. Intensely yes, but makes him for the first time think of something other than his inner battle and his danger to others and his life as mostly an outcast. So all that considered, where is the mystery? Once things are indeed real, he snaps into proud papa mode. I cannot help thinking that after Harry beat up on him he and Tonks address his inner-devil like a loving couple should, but this is just a guess. Karen From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 23:18:57 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:18:57 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180587 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > a_svirn: > > Personally, I think it was the rest of the order who were > irresponsible, sitting on their butts and waiting for three seventeen- > year-olds to do the entire job. At least, Lupin *tried* to do > something. If it wasn't for his fractured relationship with Tonks his > offer would have been perfectly reasonable. > > Alla: > Alla: > > That's the thing though ? his fractured relationship with Tonks to me > makes **all** the difference. a_svirn: All the difference for Tonks ? yes. But why it had to make all the difference for Harry? Tonks and Lupin were adults. Tonks was certainly a big girl. I don't think or, rather, I hope that she wouldn't have appreciated his championship. He was certainly unjust when he called Lupin a coward and a daredevil. For one thing, one cannot be both at the same time, for another, Lupin was neither. > Alla: > I want to know what his primary intention is ? to run away from his > wife or to help Trio. a_svirn: He intended both. And while it is not very admirable as far as Tonks was concerned, it wasn't Harry's business to take him to task, much less to insult him. a_svirn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 23:41:11 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:41:11 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180588 > a_svirn: > All the difference for Tonks ? yes. But why it had to make all the > difference for Harry? Tonks and Lupin were adults. Tonks was > certainly a big girl. I don't think or, rather, I hope that she > wouldn't have appreciated his championship. He was certainly unjust > when he called Lupin a coward and a daredevil. For one thing, one > cannot be both at the same time, for another, Lupin was neither. Alla: No, I did not mean for Tonks though, although certainly for her as well. I meant for me as a reader. As to what business Harry has chasticising Lupin? None, except plenty of people who have no business doing it poke their nose in other people's business in Potterverse. I mean, Aberworth had any sort of business telling Harry to leave this all and not do what Dumbledore told him? I mean Harry is the party whom help is being offered. I would think that if he is rejecting the help he has a right to state his reasons, no? What business Molly had to tell Sirius not to inform Harry about prophecy? She felt she had a right because she was protecting Harry, no? I think Harry felt that being a friend he was protecting Lupin and his kid to, or something, but this is just speculation. My answer is Harry had a right to speak up since he is the party to whom Lupin offered help, but besides that he is being voice of a reader, or at least some readers, just as Aberworth voiced what some readers had against Dumbledore, IMO. > > Alla: > > I want to know what his primary intention is ? to run away from his > > wife or to help Trio. > > a_svirn: > He intended both. And while it is not very admirable as far as Tonks > was concerned, it wasn't Harry's business to take him to task, much > less to insult him. Alla: But then again, Remus came to Harry, it is not like the third party takes him to task, if not Harry, who else then? I mean besides Tonks obviously, but he did not come to her. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 23:43:42 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:43:42 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180589 > Carol responds; > > Lupin is imagining Tonks's giving birth to a half-werewolf cub, and > running off with HRH would let him forget the consequences of his > choice to marry and impregnate Tonks. He is denying his > responsibility, which is not to protect three of-age wizards but to > stay with his family until duty calls him to defend the WW, as in the > Battle of Hogwarts. a_svirn: And who and how is to decide when this "until" comes? Besides, he says that Tonks would be safe. I believe him, I certainly cannot picture Lupin going off and leaving Tonks in danger. Obviously the Tonks-Lupin womenfolk were left protected, most likely by fidelius. > Carol > It's his being a werewolf (as well as his status as an "undesirable") > that makes him a danger to HRH, a_svirn: Eh ... sorry? Harry was the Undesirable No 1 himself. > Carol more so than to his wife, herself an > Auror and member of the Order. Surely, he would not have married her > without making some sort of arrangements to protect her from his > once-a-month transformations. a_svirn: Surely. I believe I said already that it was not a problem. It is the other kind of danger. > Carol: > The Trio have no such protection. Exactly how are they supposed to > protect themselves *from Lupin* when their "protector" turns into a > werewolf once a month? He can't stay in the tent with them on those > nights. Where is he supposed to go? a_svirn: Actually, "protector" is your word. As to how, I don't know, supposedly he had some scheme in mind, only we didn't get to hear it. > Carol: > Obviously, Tonks and Lupin found some way to live together in peace, > some way to protect and their unborn child from Lupin's "furry little > problem." a_svirn: Obviously. So could the Trio find a way. > Carol: My best guess is that Auror Tonks prepared Wolfsbane Potion > for her husband every month. a_svirn: She might have. Or not. We have no idea as to her proficiency in Potions. > Carol: Neither Lupin himself nor HRH had the > knowledge or the means of doing so, nor should that additional burden > have been forced upon them by Lupin's unneeded and unwanted > companionship. a_svirn: "Unwonted and unneeded"?! As far as I remember they were all three quite fond of Lupin. > Carol: (Also, of course, Harry had promised DD not to let > anyone else, including Lupin, into the secret of the Horcruxes, and it > would have been exceedingly difficult to keep it from him had he > joined them. And if they cast Muffliato to keep him from overhearing > their conversations, he'd have felt even more excluded and depressed.) a_svirn: He would have known what he had singed for. And he was used to feel excluded and depressed. > Carol, who does not see Lupin's joining HRH as remotely comparable to > fighting in the Battle of Hogwarts, which, fortunately or > unfortunately for Lupin, did not coincide with the full moon a_svirn: Yes, you keep saying that. But I really don't see it. Both were about defeating Voldemort, defending the WW and making a new world. In both cases he left his family behind. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 00:00:28 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:00:28 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180590 > Alla: > > No, I did not mean for Tonks though, although certainly for her as > well. I meant for me as a reader. As to what business Harry has > chasticising Lupin? None, except plenty of people who have no > business doing it poke their nose in other people's business in > Potterverse. > > I mean, Aberworth had any sort of business telling Harry to leave > this all and not do what Dumbledore told him? a_svirn: Did Aberforth call Harry names? > Alla: > I mean Harry is the party whom help is being offered. I would think > that if he is rejecting the help he has a right to state his reasons, > no? a_svirn: He had no right to be insulting, though. I cringed when he started hurling insults at Lupin. Of course, Lupin had forgiven even worse things to his precious friends, so Harry didn't really risk their friendship. > Alla: > What business Molly had to tell Sirius not to inform Harry about > prophecy? She felt she had a right because she was protecting Harry, > no? a_svirn: None, as a matter of fact. Which Sirius pointed out to her. > Alla: > My answer is Harry had a right to speak up since he is the party to > whom Lupin offered help, but besides that he is being voice of a > reader, or at least some readers, just as Aberworth voiced what some > readers had against Dumbledore, IMO. a_svirn: I don't understand it. How can a character be a voice of readers?! > Alla: > > But then again, Remus came to Harry, it is not like the third party > takes him to task, if not Harry, who else then? I mean besides Tonks > obviously, but he did not come to her. a_svirn: Huh? Harry *is* a third party. And Lupin didn't come to him in search of family consulting. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 00:08:57 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:08:57 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180591 > a_svirn: > He had no right to be insulting, though. I cringed when he started > hurling insults at Lupin. Of course, Lupin had forgiven even worse > things to his precious friends, so Harry didn't really risk their > friendship. Alla: Sure, he had no right to be insulting, but does it matter really? I mean if I believe that he had a right to say the essense of what he said, does it make that much of a difference if he said the hurtful things nicely or rudely? Those things ARE still hurtful to Remus but they are also truth in my view. The issue is whether Harry had a right to say that Lupin shoud not leave kid and wife, no? If he said it nicely, you would still disagree, right? > > Alla: > > What business Molly had to tell Sirius not to inform Harry about > > prophecy? She felt she had a right because she was protecting > Harry, > > no? > > a_svirn: > None, as a matter of fact. Which Sirius pointed out to her. Alla: Exactly. > > Alla: > > My answer is Harry had a right to speak up since he is the party to > > whom Lupin offered help, but besides that he is being voice of a > > reader, or at least some readers, just as Aberworth voiced what > some > > readers had against Dumbledore, IMO. > > a_svirn: > I don't understand it. How can a character be a voice of readers?! Alla: I am not sure how to explain it. Like with Aberworth, I do not believe there was much need for him to say what he said about Dumbledore besides to be so to speak voice of the readers, who did not like what Dumbledore did to Harry. > a_svirn: > Huh? Harry *is* a third party. And Lupin didn't come to him in search > of family consulting. > Alla: How he is a third party if Lupin offers his services to him? From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 00:32:47 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:32:47 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180592 > Alla: > > Sure, he had no right to be insulting, but does it matter really? a_svirn: It does, to me. Very much so. > Alla: I > mean if I believe that he had a right to say the essense of what he > said, does it make that much of a difference if he said the hurtful > things nicely or rudely? Those things ARE still hurtful to Remus but > they are also truth in my view. > > The issue is whether Harry had a right to say that Lupin shoud not > leave kid and wife, no? If he said it nicely, you would still > disagree, right? a_svirn: For one thing, it's not all that he said to Lupin. And you cannot call someone a coward ? nicely. Because it is not nice. And in his case it was *not* true. As to staying with his wife and kid ? it was for *them* to decide, not for Harry. For Harry was to decide whether he wants Lupin or not, but no one had made him Tonk's spokesman. Besides, Harry did not say, that Lupin had to talk it over with Tonks first. He simply said that Lupin *must* stay with his wife and child, which is rubbish ? considering that it was all part of war effort, and he was a member of the Resistance. > > a_svirn: > > Huh? Harry *is* a third party. And Lupin didn't come to him in > search > > of family consulting. > > > > Alla: > > How he is a third party if Lupin offers his services to him? a_svirn: He is a third party as far as Lupin relationship with his wife is concerned. And the fact that Lupin offered him his help, did not give the right to lecture him on this relationship. a_svirn From angellima at xtra.co.nz Sat Jan 12 01:14:25 2008 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:14:25 +1300 Subject: Explain This Passage Message-ID: <003a01c854b8$792a4c70$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 180593 Potioncat: My point has less to do with bloodline definitions and more with trying to understand the logic of what Dumbledore was trying to tell Harry, or what Voldemort's thinking was. When I rephrase it as I did above, is Voldemort's logic clear to you? In a strong sense, neither Harry nor Neville are like Voldemort in the circumstances of their birth. So why DID Voldemort choose Harry over Neville? RL Angel: My apologies for not replying to some comments others' had asked of me - I finally went on holiday - whippeee! But bare with me will eventually get to those once I manage to successfully manoeuvre the site. I absolutely love this question. The prophecy was another farce, I've tried everywhich way to scramble sense out of it, and it hurts my feeble brain lol. I gather JKR meant for Voldemort to have seen himself in Harry long before his soul latched onto Harry, however both her and Dumbledore aren't doing a good job of 'splaining :) But I'm saying it now if I haven't so before, this story is not Harry's it's Snape's!!! It always was :) Any explanation that excludes the Snape factor in Riddle gunning for Harry over Neville will undoubtedly fall short. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 01:23:38 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:23:38 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180594 Carol earlier: > > It's his being a werewolf (as well as his status as an "undesirable") that makes him a danger to HRH, > > a_svirn: > Eh ... sorry? Harry was the Undesirable No 1 himself. > > Carol: > > The Trio have no such protection. Exactly how are they supposed to protect themselves *from Lupin* when their "protector" turns into a > > werewolf once a month? He can't stay in the tent with them on those > > nights. Where is he supposed to go? > > a_svirn: > Actually, "protector" is your word. As to how, I don't know, > supposedly he had some scheme in mind, only we didn't get to hear it. Carol again: And how is having yet another, easily reocgnizable and extremely dangerous, undesirable supposed to help them? Did you notice any specific offer of help that Lupin made that they might have accepted or rejected on its own merit? I didn't. He wants to know what they're up to, which they won't tell him, and to accompany them on their adventure. If not to protect them, or stand guard under the Invisibility cloak, exactly what is his purpose? Why offer help they don't need? Besides, you're evading my question. How are the Trio supposed to protect themselves when Lupin transforms? They can't always be brewing a tricky potion like Wolfsbane, which not even Hermione has learned to do and which must be drunk hot. Tonks, OTOH. is not going anywhere, and could easily brew it at home. With no wolfsbane Potion. Lupin is a danger to them and to himself. He would not be able to stay in the tent with them on those nights, meaning that he would endanger anyone else who was around and call attention to them and to himself. Carol earlier: > > Obviously, Tonks and Lupin found some way to live together in peace, some way to protect and their unborn child from Lupin's "furry > little problem." > > a_svirn: > Obviously. So could the Trio find a way. Carol: I disagree. The only way is either to lock him up (rather difficult in a tent, and remember Young!Lupin's howls in the Shrieking Shack? So much for secrecy) or to make Wolfsbane Potion (which none of them knows how to make, not to mention the difficulties cited above). Neither solution is possible for the Trio and neither should be asked of them. It's Lupin's responsibility, not theirs, to deal with his affliction. > > > Carol: > My best guess is that Auror Tonks prepared Wolfsbane Potion > > for her husband every month. > > a_svirn: > She might have. Or not. We have no idea as to her proficiency in > Potions. Carol: As I reminded you in a previous post, NEWT Potions is a requirement to be an Auror. And to get into NEWT Potions with Snape as a teacher (tonks would have been his student) you need an O on your OWL. So she must have been at least as good at Potions as Hermione, not to mention that she had sixth- and seventh-year Potions with Snape, and she must have scored well on her Potions NEWT to become an Auror. It's a prerequisite for the job (unless you're Harry Potter, who can evidently become chief Auror without even graduating from Hogwarts). > > > Carol: > Neither Lupin himself nor HRH had the knowledge or the means of doing so, nor should that additional burden have been forced upon them by Lupin's unneeded and unwanted companionship. > > a_svirn: > "Unwonted and unneeded"?! As far as I remember they were all three > quite fond of Lupin. Carol: "Fond of Lupin" does not mean that they want and need him with them in their Horcrux search. The companionship is a burden because a) they can't tell him what they're up to, and b) he turns into a vicious monster every full moon. And, as Harry points out, Lupin is not acting like anyone they want with them on their quest. He's too wrapped up in his own self-hatred and guilt: "You don't know how most of the Wizarding world sees creatures like me! When they know of my affliction, the can barely talk to me! Don't you see what I've done? Even her own family is disgusted by our marriage {Where's the evidence of that, BTW?], what parents want their only daughter to marry a werewolf? And the child--the child--[He pulls out handfuls of his own hair.] My kind don't usually breed! it will be like me. I am convinced of it. How can I forgive myself, when I knowingly risked passing on my own condition to an innocent child! And if by some miracle, it is not like me, then it will be better off, a hundred times so, without a father of whom it must be ashamed!" (DH Am. ed. 213). Hermione asks how any child can be ashamed of him, but Harry replies, rightly, IMO, Oh, I don't know, Hermione. I'd be pretty ashamed of him" (214). Lupin is not nobly offering to fight the war against Voldemort. He's looking for an excuse to run away from his responsibilities and take the consequences of "*knowingly* risk[ing] passing on his condition to an innocent child." Who better than a werewolf father to help that innocent child cope with that condition should he actually be born with it? Who better than a werewolf to stand by the wife he *knowingly* impregnated as she waits to give birth to a child who might be a werewolf? nor is his conduct as he pulls his wand on Harry and knocks him against a wall for calling him a coward noble. (It's a parallel to Snape, who loses patience and casts some sort of Stinging Hex im after Harry calls him a coward in HBP, except that, IMO, Lupin unlike Snape, really is being a coward at this point.) And, yes, it's possible to be a daredevil and a coward at the same time, taking physical risks that can get you killed (eliminating the innocent child's shame at his father's condition) and evading moral responsibilities. (Lupin showed in PoA and in SWM, where he watched Sirius and James tormenting Severus and remained silent) that he's quite capable of moral cowardice. Harry's words cause Lupin to return to Tonks, who needs his love and emotional support, however well she can handle herself fighting Death Eaters. That Lupin ultimately names Harry as the godfather of his child is surely a tacit admission that Harry was right. Carol, who thinks that Lupin redeemed himself by following Harry's advice, standing by his wife and child until the time came to join the battle and risk his life, not senselessly, but with good cause From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 03:57:20 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:57:20 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180595 a_svirn: > > Actually, "protector" is your word. As to how, I don't know, > > supposedly he had some scheme in mind, only we didn't get to hear it. Carol responds: I already answered this, but I'm reanswering because, as it turns out, "protector" isn't my word; it's Lupin's. I just couldn't find the reference before. After Harry (politely) refuses to tell Lupin their mission, Lupin says, "But I might still be of some use to you. You know what I am and what I can do. I could come with you to provide protection. There would be no need to tell me exactly what you were up to" (DH Am. ed. 211). Which returns me, of course, to my original argument, what happens when they need protection from their protector? And note that Harry himself silently raises another of my points, wondering how they could possibly "keep their mission secret from Lupin if he were with them all the time" (211). It's Hermione who brings up Tonks. Her "Congratulations" when she learns that Tonks is going to have a baby is answered with an "artificial smile" and a repeated offer to accompany HRH (212). Sorry to prolong the argument (Geoff must be holding his head in agony), but I had to clarify that "protector" was not my word. I got the idea straight from Lupin himself. Carol, reaching five posts for the day and Disapparating From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 05:06:55 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:06:55 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180596 > > Alla: > > I mean, Aberworth had any sort of business telling Harry to leave > > this all and not do what Dumbledore told him? > > a_svirn: > Did Aberforth call Harry names? zgirnius: Did Harry start kicking furniture around in Aberforth's house? > a_svirn: > He had no right to be insulting, though. I cringed when he started > hurling insults at Lupin. Of course, Lupin had forgiven even worse > things to his precious friends, so Harry didn't really risk their > friendship. zgirnius: Your mileage obviously varies, but Lupin stepped over the line for me when he dragged James into the conversation, and Harry's initial response to this, while harsh, was courteous in form and tone. > > Alla: > > My answer is Harry had a right to speak up since he is the party to > > whom Lupin offered help, but besides that he is being voice of a > > reader, or at least some readers, just as Aberworth voiced what > some > > readers had against Dumbledore, IMO. > a_svirn: > I don't understand it. How can a character be a voice of readers?! zgirnius: By saying what we would like to say to the character ourselves? Though, if the author imagined her readers would want a certain thing to be said, and wrote the scene to produce this effect, it might be more accurate to suggest it was the voice of the author. > > Alla: > I > > mean if I believe that he had a right to say the essense of what he > > said, does it make that much of a difference if he said the hurtful > > things nicely or rudely? Those things ARE still hurtful to Remus > but > > they are also truth in my view. a_svirn: > And you cannot call someone a coward ? nicely. zgirnius: I beg to differ. Lupin was acting out of fear, and this can be said nicely (or, at any rate, without resorting to insults). He's so afraid something is going to go wrong with the pregnancy, or the relationship, or Tonks, that he is not even giving it a chance, and is running away from it instead. When what he should do, is grab this new chance of happiness life has unexpectedly blessed him with, and hold on to it with both hands. (I recognize some readers think Lupin does not love Tonks and is not interested in her child. I take his later behavior as proof this is not the case; however, if it were true, I would have even less trouble with any insults Harry may have heaved in his direction.) a_svirn: > Besides, Harry did not say, that Lupin had to talk it over with Tonks > first. zgirnius: This does not bother me, because it seemed clear that Lupin had *not* talked it over with Tonks. If his fears about the baby and the relationship had nothing to do with his decision, and he was going for the greater good of the wizard world, I presume he would have said so. You know, follow up "You don't understand" with "Tonks is in the Order too. She agrees you need my help, she'd like to help herself but we cannot risk the baby, so she is going to stay with her mother," instead of launching into an explanation of why marrying her was a huge mistake. The way real people talk in conversations, in my experience, we cannot conclude Harry would still read Lupin the same lecture if Lupin was there with Tonks' blessing. It's just clear to Harry at the moment that Lupin neither has it, nor cares, so Harry is responding to the situation with which he is actually presented, and any absolute-sounding statements he makes may well be meant only in that specific context. Also, I think it likely Harry would have rejected Lupin's help anyway, since he was not going to tell him the secret of the Horcruxes, and he was not sure how that could be kept from Remus, if he came along. So telling Lupin to go and get permission, would be creating a false impression that this would win him inclusion in the mission. Finally, the relationship and Tonks' feelings is not at all what Harry is upset about, as I see this scene. If Lupin had had that discussion with Tonks, and she had blessed the idea by affirming she can take care of her self and her mom can help her through the pregnancy, this would show that Lupin had given real thought to the safety of his child. That he had obviously not, is what made his comment about James rankle. It seems to Harry that Lupin has not made keeping his own child safe a priority; it is something he dismissively leaves to his wife and her parents without even consulting them, as though it were not his problem. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 06:23:19 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:23:19 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: <003a01c854b8$792a4c70$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180597 > RL: > > My point has less to do with bloodline definitions and more > with trying to understand the logic of what Dumbledore was > trying to tell Harry, or what Voldemort's thinking was. When > I rephrase it as I did above, is Voldemort's logic clear to > you? In a strong sense, neither Harry nor Neville are like > Voldemort in the circumstances of their birth. So why DID > Voldemort choose Harry over Neville? Mike: First off, I wanted to correct the attribution: the above was written by RL, not Potioncat. PC's good, but she's not *that* good. So let's not put words in her mouth. Now, on to your question; Someone pointed out, on a different thread I think, that Voldemort would not have stopped with Harry if he had succeeded in killing him. He would have taken out Neville, too. He just picked the Potters as his *first* victims, he wasn't thinking there was anything to stop him from proceeding to the Longbottoms after that. I'm sure the Longbottoms were in hiding too, maybe LV just hadn't found them yet. But as far as the whole blood thing; I don't think Voldemort really cared that much, despite what Dumbledore said. I think the pure- blood mannia was for his followers consumption. He needed a hook to recruit them and to keep them focused on their tasks, a reason d'etre if you will, giving them something *they* believed in to pursue Voldemort's goals. Give the DEs somebody to lord over and they won't notice how much self determination they've lost to Voldemort. Another Hitler parallel, with the DEs playing the part of the Gestapo. > Angel: > > > The prophecy was another farce, I've tried everywhich way to > scramble sense out of it, and it hurts my feeble brain, lol. I > gather JKR meant for Voldemort to have seen himself in Harry > long before his soul latched onto Harry, however both her and > Dumbledore aren't doing a good job of 'splainin :) Mike: Actually Angel, I don't think the prophesy had anything to do with *how* Voldemort saw himself in Harry. His choice of Harry over Neville, if he really made that choice (see above), was irrespective of what the prophesy said. As Dumbledore 'splained, both boys fit the prophesy description. Dumbledore thought Voldemort picked Harry because of their similar heritage. I do agree with you, and RL, on one point, this whole pure-blood / half-blood factoring on Voldemort's part sounds mighty flimsy. If Dumbledore had said that LV just came after Harry *first*, that would've sounded more like the Voldemort we all know and love. Maybe DD didn't want to dishearten Harry any more by telling him, "Sorry mate, it was the luck of the draw." Trying to, I don't know, make Harry seem special, like he's not that much different from Voldemort and that he can be just as great as he is? I'm floundering here. ;) Because DD's story doesn't make sense to me either. > Angel: > But I'm saying it now if I haven't so before, this story is not > Harry's it's Snape's!!! It always was :) Any explanation that > excludes the Snape factor in Riddle gunning for Harry over > Neville will undoubtedly fall short. Mike: Whoa Angel, You can't do that! ;) You can't just leave us hanging after a statement like that. C'mon girl, dish. LOL From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 11:54:15 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:54:15 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180598 > Carol again: > And how is having yet another, easily reocgnizable and extremely > dangerous, undesirable supposed to help them? Did you notice any > specific offer of help that Lupin made that they might have accepted > or rejected on its own merit? I didn't. a_svirn: Now, really. Aren't you being somewhat unfair? How on earth could he be specific, if he didn't know any specifics? > Carol He wants to know what they're > up to, which they won't tell him, and to accompany them on their > adventure. If not to protect them, or stand guard under the > Invisibility cloak, exactly what is his purpose? Why offer help they > don't need? a_svirn: They needed all help they could get, actually. And Harry was certainly tempted by Lupin's offer. If it weren't for Tonks I can see him accepting it gladly. > Carol > Besides, you're evading my question. How are the Trio supposed to > protect themselves when Lupin transforms? They can't always be brewing > a tricky potion like Wolfsbane, which not even Hermione has learned to > do and which must be drunk hot. a_svirn: I did not evade the question. I said that Lupin must have had some scheme in mind, only we didn't get to hear it. The simple solution would be for him to apparate somewhere safe, during the full moon. Then Hermione would send him a Patronus and they would meet again. Or, rather one of them would meet him under the protection of the Cloak, to be on the safe side. They only would need to perform Hominem Revelio to ensure that he wasn't followed, and ask some coded question to ensure that it was indeed Lupin. Piece of cake. > Carol: Tonks, OTOH. is not going anywhere, > and could easily brew it at home. With no wolfsbane Potion. Lupin is a > danger to them and to himself. He would not be able to stay in the > tent with them on those nights, meaning that he would endanger anyone > else who was around and call attention to them and to himself. > As I reminded you in a previous post, NEWT Potions is a requirement to > be an Auror. And to get into NEWT Potions with Snape as a teacher > (tonks would have been his student) you need an O on your OWL. So she > must have been at least as good at Potions as Hermione, not to mention > that she had sixth- and seventh-year Potions with Snape, and she must > have scored well on her Potions NEWT to become an Auror. a_svirn: There is no reason to suppose that wolfsbane was part of the curriculum, though. In fact, it is very unlikely. Lupin said in POA that it was a recent discovery. He also said that it is particularly difficult and there aren't many wizards who are up to making it. > Carol: > "Fond of Lupin" does not mean that they want and need him with them in > their Horcrux search. The companionship is a burden because a) they > can't tell him what they're up to, and b) he turns into a vicious > monster every full moon. And, as Harry points out, Lupin is not acting > like anyone they want with them on their quest. He's too wrapped up in > his own self-hatred and guilt a_svirn: So he Harry kicks him a bit more to add to this self-hatred and guilt. Very admirable. > Carol: > Lupin is not nobly offering to fight the war against Voldemort. He's > looking for an excuse to run away from his responsibilities and take > the consequences of "*knowingly* risk[ing] passing on his condition to > an innocent child." a_svirn: He was doing both at the same time. Which is quite possible (unlike being a coward and a daredevil). > Carol: > And, yes, it's possible to be a daredevil and a coward at the same > time, taking physical risks that can get you killed (eliminating the > innocent child's shame at his father's condition) and evading moral > responsibilities. a_svirn: That's being a (moral) coward, but not a daredevil. A daredevil is someone recklessly daring, what is so daring in being suicidal? You'd write all Gryffindors off as suicidal ? it is "their nerve and daring" (along with chivalry) that set them apart. > Carol: (Lupin showed in PoA and in SWM, where he watched > Sirius and James tormenting Severus and remained silent) that he's > quite capable of moral cowardice. a_svirn: Sure. And how is he being a daredevil in this instance? He is anything but. a_svirn, admitting that Lupin indeed offered "protection", and apologising for assuming that it was Carol's word. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 12:19:54 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:19:54 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180599 > > a_svirn: > > Did Aberforth call Harry names? > > zgirnius: > Did Harry start kicking furniture around in Aberforth's house? a_svirn: It wouldn't surprise me if Harry kicked Aberforth should Aberforth call him a coward. > a_svirn: > > And you cannot call someone a coward ? nicely. > > zgirnius: > I beg to differ. Lupin was acting out of fear, and this can be said > nicely (or, at any rate, without resorting to insults). a_svirn: Yes it can. Because acting out fear, is not the same thing as being a coward. Every person in existence has acted out of fear once or twice, at least. Even the great Harry Potter, when he panicked and tried to run from the Grimauld Place, because he thought himself possessed. Lupin's motivation here is very similar. > zgirnius: > This does not bother me, because it seemed clear that Lupin had *not* > talked it over with Tonks. If his fears about the baby and the > relationship had nothing to do with his decision, and he was going > for the greater good of the wizard world, I presume he would have > said so. a_svirn: He was doing both ? acting from his personal fears about the baby and for the sake of the WW and defeating Voldemort. And the former was not Harry's business. > zgirnius: > The way real people talk in conversations, in my experience, we > cannot conclude Harry would still read Lupin the same lecture if > Lupin was there with Tonks' blessing. a_svirn: Of course he wouldn't. It doesn't follow, however, that he had any right to lecture Lupin at all, let alone to insult him. > zgirnius: > Finally, the relationship and Tonks' feelings is not at all what > Harry is upset about, as I see this scene. If Lupin had had that > discussion with Tonks, and she had blessed the idea by affirming she > can take care of her self and her mom can help her through the > pregnancy, this would show that Lupin had given real thought to the > safety of his child. a_svirn: I don' see it. Lupin said that Tonks would be OK. Which means that he had thought it over and concluded that she wasn't in any immediate danger. And what sort of danger she would be while staying with her mother and under the Fidelius protection, anyway? From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Jan 12 14:17:52 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:17:52 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180600 > Mike: > First off, I wanted to correct the attribution: the above was > written by RL, not Potioncat. PC's good, but she's not *that* > good. So let's not put words in her mouth. Potioncat: Well, you're half right. I didn't write the (now snipped) post you mentioned. Mike: > > Now, on to your question; Someone pointed out, on a different thread > I think, that Voldemort would not have stopped with Harry if he had > succeeded in killing him. He would have taken out Neville, too. He > just picked the Potters as his *first* victims, he wasn't thinking > there was anything to stop him from proceeding to the Longbottoms > after that. I'm sure the Longbottoms were in hiding too, maybe LV > just hadn't found them yet. Potioncat: But that goes against canon. That is, if canon means anything anymore. A very distraught Snape says that LV believes the prophecy refers to Lily. > Mike: > But as far as the whole blood thing; I don't think Voldemort really > cared that much, despite what Dumbledore said. I think the pure- > blood mannia was for his followers consumption. He needed a hook to > recruit them and to keep them focused on their tasks, a reason d'etre > if you will, giving them something *they* believed in to pursue > Voldemort's goals. Give the DEs somebody to lord over and they won't > notice how much self determination they've lost to Voldemort. Another > Hitler parallel, with the DEs playing the part of the Gestapo. Potioncat: Makes sense to me. Otherwise, how could Snape rise so high in the organization? Blood seems to matter, except when it doesn't. And we also have---we need a name for interview-based-canon--- have JKR's comment somewhere that LV had invited the Potters to join him. (I'm sorry I don't have a reference for that.) > >Mike: > Maybe DD didn't want to dishearten Harry any more by telling him, > "Sorry mate, it was the luck of the draw." Trying to, I don't know, > make Harry seem special, like he's not that much different from > Voldemort and that he can be just as great as he is? I'm floundering > here. ;) Because DD's story doesn't make sense to me either. Potioncat: Come to think of it, what was JKR's intention in giving Neville a July 30 birthday? How did that sub-plot really advance the story? > > > > Angel: > > But I'm saying it now if I haven't so before, this story is not > > Harry's it's Snape's!!! It always was :) Any explanation that > > excludes the Snape factor in Riddle gunning for Harry over > > Neville will undoubtedly fall short. Potioncat: Yep, Angel's got it right. The whole series was about Snape. After all, the hero always dies in this sort of tale. Hmph! "Not 'that' good" indeed! ;-) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jan 12 16:32:37 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:32:37 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180601 > > a_svirn: > > I don't understand it. How can a character be a voice of readers?! > > zgirnius: > By saying what we would like to say to the character ourselves? > Though, if the author imagined her readers would want a certain thing > to be said, and wrote the scene to produce this effect, it might be > more accurate to suggest it was the voice of the author. Magpie: Yes, that is what would make him a voice of the reader--any time you give a character the words that the readers would logically be thinking about something. Or sometimes the characters ask questions the readers would have been asking. I think Ron's acting like the voice of the reader when he rattles off how pointless the camping trip seems to be, for instance. However, I don't think any of that applies here to Harry, speaking for this reader. All I'd seen of Lupin/Tonks was a weird relationship where Lupin was never happy and Tonks was blissfully unaware of her husband's state of mind and everyone else said he should be with her and ignored his ambivalence as well. So I wasn't much surprised when he tried to duck out again, since none of the issues Lupin had with being with Tonks were ever addressed, just overrided by everyone else who said they shouldn't matter. (Lupin being Lupin bowed to the pressure and shut up, but that never seemed like a good idea to me in HBP either.) When Harry started lecturing Lupin it was out of left field to me for a reader. Why would I suddenly think that Lupin was being a coward and a daredevil--which as a_svirn points out are strange things to be at the same time. The idea is supposed to be he's more afraid of being married than being killed, but that still sounded more like some random kid making up motivations for some adult he doesn't know that well, about a marriage he knew nothing about (oh, and not to mention a disease he has no experience living with) so I certainly didn't buy it. Even if Lupin didn't truly want to be with Tonks and really did have a horror of the danger he put her and the baby in (and a horror of creating a baby that would be under the same stigma he was) I didn't think that made him a coward--maybe because those thoughts always seemed perfectly reasonable to me to begin with. I mean, Lupin is the only werewolf here, he's the one who really knows what it's like and really knows what he fears. And Harry's never been very good at reading situations before--here, in fact, Harry's blatantly putting his own issues on Lupin in a way not that different than Sirius projected his feelings about James on Harry. Harry the orphan has issues with dead parents (he also has his own issues about doing things on his own with little help). Lupin the werewolf has issues with infecting others with his own stigmatizing illness, hurting those he loves, and therefore has a desire to use his life in a positive way that actually saves people. Sister Magpie as a reader has different questions and desires than both of them, wasn't angered at Lupin for leaving Tonks under protection and thought it ridiculous that the whole Order wasn't already doing exactly what Lupin offered to do. And she wonders what the scene would have been like if Lupin had shot back with his own meta commentary, demanding to know why Harry had to play the lone boy martyr hero when so much was at stake when it would have made far more sense to work together to destroy Voldemort. -m (who felt like Tonks and Lupin's whole relationship came across in the end like one big delusion of Tonks and who thought DH was the best thing that ever happened to the Remus/Sirius ship!) From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 19:04:29 2008 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:04:29 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180602 > clcb58: > Other Muggle/Wizard marriages that aren't "totally dysfunctional & > poisonous" (at least not obviously so): > > Ted and Andromeda Tonks > Seamus Finnigan's parents > > ...which leads to the question of why Seamus was at Hogwarts in DH > when only purebloods were allowed to attend? > > clcb lizzyben: No, Ted Tonks was actually a muggle-born wizard. This surprised me a little, because I was sure that he was a Muggle, but he's actually a wizard. So, presumed-Slytherin Andromeda Tonks was brave, noble & right for marrying a muggleborn wizard over her family's objections. But was presumed-Slytherin Eileen Prince brave, noble & right for marrying the Muggle Tobias Snape? The text strongly suggests that she was not. There's the split again - wizard/wizard marriages seem good & strong; while wizard/Muggle marriages are bad & wrong. I'd forgotten about Seamus Finnigan, who might be an exception to this pattern. But we don't ever meet or see his parents, so it's hard to say anything about them. We do know that she concealed her wizarding background until after they married - repeating the WW pattern of secrets & lies. Maybe it's a miserable, awful marriage too or maybe they're blissfully happy, who knows? But these are incredibly minor, unnamed, unseen characters. So it's not a real contrast to the unhappy Muggle/wizard marriages that we do see. lizzyben From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 19:09:21 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:09:21 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180603 > zgirnius: > The way real people talk in conversations, in my experience, we > cannot conclude Harry would still read Lupin the same lecture if > Lupin was there with Tonks' blessing. a_svirn: Of course he wouldn't. It doesn't follow, however, that he had any right to lecture Lupin at all, let alone to insult him. Alla: Okay, I do not get it. Say Harry saw Lupin deciding to do some other dangerous thing for the Order, which has nothing to do with Harry. Say Harry decided to give Lupin the same lecture, or roughly the same lecture as he gave him in this chapter. I will be the first one to say that this is NOT Harry's business. But here Lupin comes to Harry to offer services. Those are the thoughts Harry has about Lupin's situation; those ARE the reasons why he rejects his help. You think Harry should have been quiet? Okay, but how would the readers learn that those ARE the reasons? Do you know what I mean? If JKR agrees with Harry and wants reader to know the reasons, I just do not see who would be MORE logical person to express them. I mean, say Molly or Arthur or anybody decided to lecture Lupin on this, I would again say - none of your business, but Harry did not ASK Remus to offer his help, no? Are you saying that he has no right to respond? He was insulting sure, but as Zara said - till Remus brought up James, he was harsh but courteous. You know - bitter truth is better than sweet lies, etc? Magpie: However, I don't think any of that applies here to Harry, speaking for this reader. All I'd seen of Lupin/Tonks was a weird relationship where Lupin was never happy and Tonks was blissfully unaware of her husband's state of mind and everyone else said he should be with her and ignored his ambivalence as well. So I wasn't much surprised when he tried to duck out again, since none of the issues Lupin had with being with Tonks were ever addressed, just overrided by everyone else who said they shouldn't matter. (Lupin being Lupin bowed to the pressure and shut up, but that never seemed like a good idea to me in HBP either.) Alla: Sure, this explanation I am happy to buy and in my mind it is the most sympathetic to Lupin. I wanted to strangle Molly in HBP when she was basically forcing him to accept Tonk's pining. BUT you know what? There is always a point when I stop feeling pity for the character like this and start getting annoyed. You do not love Tonks? FINE ? do yourself a favor and tell everybody around you, especially Molly to go jump in the lake and tell Tonks to stop following you around as a kitten and find somebody else as object of her affection. I think it is totally Remus' character; I am just not very sympathetic anymore. Or maybe and that is what I am thinking that JKR agrees with Harry and what he said about Remus was true. Otherwise as Carol said would Remus made Harry a godfather, but for acknowledging the truth? I wonder. Oh, by the way just wanted to say that one thing I completely disagree with Carol is that I do not think Lupin's being a werewolf played any part in Harry's decision to reject his help. IMO. Magpie: Even if Lupin didn't truly want to be with Tonks and really did have a horror of the danger he put her and the baby in (and a horror of creating a baby that would be under the same stigma he was) I didn't think that made him a coward--maybe because those thoughts always seemed perfectly reasonable to me to begin with. I mean, Lupin is the only werewolf here; he's the one who really knows what it's like and really knows what he fears. And Harry's never been very good at reading situations before--here, in fact, Harry's blatantly putting his own issues on Lupin in a way not that different than Sirius projected his feelings about James on Harry. Alla: Sure, it is possible, but I still have a feeling that JKR agrees with Harry here. He has issues with dead parents, but I do not see anything not true in what he said about parents not leaving the kids unless they have to. I mean, what I am trying to say is that I do not see how his issue stops him from assessing the situation, if nothing else it gives him more insight IMO. And yes, I think DH was a nice support for Sirius/Remus too, hehe. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 20:01:57 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:01:57 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180604 lizzyben wrote: > > No, Ted Tonks was actually a muggle-born wizard. This surprised me a little, because I was sure that he was a Muggle, but he's actually a wizard. Carol responds: Right. He's introduced by Tonks herself in OoP, where she says, "My dad's a Muggle-born and he's a right old slob." Later in the same book, Sirius Black tells Harry that his favorite cousin, Andromeda, was burned off the family tapestry for marrying a Muggle-born. The respective quotes are in "The Advance Guard" (OoP Am. ed. 50) and "The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black" (113). I think it's the Family Tree on the Lexicon website that refers to Ted Tonks as a Muggle, but either JKR labeled it erroneously (unlikely given Ted's role in DH), or it was transcribed erroneously (along with the dates for the thirteen-year-old father), or the Black family (like Voldemort) didn't distinguish between Muggles and Muggle-borns. In any case, all the canonical references to Ted Tonks (in OoP and DH) refer to him as a Muggle-born, not a Muggle, and the marriage seems to be a happy one. lizzyben: > So, presumed-Slytherin Andromeda Tonks was brave, noble & right for marrying a muggleborn wizard over her family's objections. But was presumed-Slytherin Eileen Prince brave, noble & right for marrying the Muggle Tobias Snape? The text strongly suggests that she was not. > There's the split again - wizard/wizard marriages seem good & strong; while wizard/Muggle marriages are bad & wrong. Carol responds: Andromeda Tonks had a happy marriage despite her family's rejection of her for marrying a "Muggle"; Eileen Prince had a dysfunctional, unhappy marriage. (I imagine that she faced similar opposition from "the Full-Blood Princes," but that's just speculation based on young Severus's nickname for himself.) The respective success or failure of these marriages seems to me more a matter of personalities and cultures (Ted Tonks being a jovial Hufflepuff and Tobias Snape being an abusive Muggle of whom both his witch wife and his little son were afraid) than of marriages to Muggles being disapproved and marriages to Muggle-borns approved (by JKR or the characters or the WW at large; it's not clear from your post who thinks that marriages to Muggles are "bad and wrong"). The marriage of a Witch and a Wizard from differing backgrounds and "bloodlines" is certainly much more probable than the marriage of a Witch or Wizard to a Muggle, as well as less likely to result in conflict sim;ly because one marriage partner or the other will be uprooted from his or her culture in a mixed Magical/Muggle marriage, whereas in a Pure-blood/Muggle-born marriage, both partners can live happily in the WW. (I can't see Eileen Prince or little Severus feeling at home in the "Muggle dungheap" that Bellatrix so stridently condemns. The wonder is that Eileen Prince remained with her husband, which she clearly did until Severus was at least nine or ten and probably beyond; we don't seem to hear of WW divorces, not counting the Muggle Tom Riddle Sr. running out on his wife and unborn child after discovering that he had been "hoodwinked." Nor can I imagine any but the most complacent Muggle living in the WW, where he has even less status than a Squib and can't do magic or see magically concealed places). No one in the books speaks for or against mixed Muggle/Wizard marriages except for Ron's remark that "If we hadn't married Muggles, we'd have died out." (Wizards can even marry giantesses, apparently, but that didn't work out, either.) But it seems to me that marriages between people who are not equal partners, in which the magical partner's status must be concealed from the Muggle neighbors and the children (unless they're Squibs) sent away to a school that the Muggle parent can't even visit, would be very hard to sustain. In theory, the magical partner could turn the Muggle partner into a toad; that Eileen Prince doesn't use magic on her husband can only be explained, as far as I can determine, by her fear of the legal consequences of using magic on a Muggle (cf. Morfin Gaunt). lizzyben: > > I'd forgotten about Seamus Finnigan, who might be an exception to this pattern. But we don't ever meet or see his parents, so it's hard to say anything about them. Carol responds: We meet Mrs. Finnigan at the QWC, where she has a tent covered in shamrocks. Seamus and his friend Dean, whose "folks are Muggles, mate" (I won't get into the off-page story of his secretly Wizard biological father being killed by DEs), are with her, but her husband isn't. Presumably, all the Muggle-repelling spells and/or the Statute of Secrecy would make it impossible for him to attend even if he wanted to. lizzyben: We do know that she concealed her wizarding background until after they married - repeating the WW pattern of secrets & lies. Maybe it's a miserable, awful marriage too or maybe they're blissfully happy, who knows? Carol: Certainly, the witch wife seems to be the dominant partner, in contrast to Eileen Prince and Tobias Snape. She's the one who opposed Seamus's return to Hogwarts in OoP. His father's opinion is not even mentioned. Carol, who thinks that a marriage between a magical person and a Muggle would require a very strong foundation of mutual love and respect to endure and would work only in mixed Wizarding/Muggle towns like Ottery St. Catchpole (George could have married a Muggle and made it work, I think) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 20:14:12 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:14:12 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180605 Alla wrote: > Alla: > > Or maybe and that is what I am thinking that JKR agrees with Harry > and what he said about Remus was true. Otherwise as Carol said would > Remus made Harry a godfather, but for acknowledging the truth? I > wonder. > > Oh, by the way just wanted to say that one thing I completely > disagree with Carol is that I do not think Lupin's being a werewolf > played any part in Harry's decision to reject his help. IMO. Carol responds: Sorry to be unclear. I agree with you; Lupin's being a werewolf had nothing to do with his reaction to Lupin. He was disapproving of Lupin's decision to leave his family and join HRH's adventure. But, IMO, *Lupin* was not thinking clearly when he offered his services as protector given the danger his transformations would pose to the people he was trying to protect. His companionship would not only have created tension and inconvenience because of the difficulty of keeping their mission from him, it would have actually endangered them--not to mention that his guilt and depression would no doubt have increased as the result of abandoning his wife and child. Who needs a Horcrux around their necks (not that they have it yet) when they've got doom-and-gloom Lupin pulling out his hair and throwing furniture? Carol, not attributing her own views to Harry, just pointing out that Lupin's offer was not only self-serving (much like his behavior in PoA) but irrational and far more problematic than helpful From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 12 21:05:51 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 21:05:51 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180606 > > > a_svirn: > > > I don't understand it. How can a character be a voice of readers?! > > > > zgirnius: > > By saying what we would like to say to the character ourselves? > > Though, if the author imagined her readers would want a certain thing > > to be said, and wrote the scene to produce this effect, it might be > > more accurate to suggest it was the voice of the author. > > Magpie: > > However, I don't think any of that applies here to Harry, speaking for > this reader. All I'd seen of Lupin/Tonks was a weird relationship where > Lupin was never happy and Tonks was blissfully unaware of her husband's > state of mind and everyone else said he should be with her and ignored > his ambivalence as well. Pippin: Tonks was not unaware of Lupin's state of mind, at least in HBP. They'd discussed their relationship a lot according to what both of them say. It's the same as the (non-canonical) Arwen/Aragorn subplot from the LOTR movies: he thinks she'll be better off without him, so he tells her their love is not real, and she, no surprise, knows him well enough not to believe him. The people who don't believe Lupin know him pretty well too, most of them since he was eleven years old. I wasn't surprised when Lupin ducked out, because he said he was a coward back in PoA, and I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop ever since. Daredevilry -- risking your life for thrills-- is more than compatible with cowardice. Lupin has an old habit of drugging himself with danger to avoid his responsibilities. The opportunity to do so is the downside of Gryffindor bravery. And that brings us to the downside of Gryffindor chivalry: disempowerment. In order for someone to be a protector, someone else has to be a weakling. There's nothing wrong with helping someone who really needs it. But Lupin is not offering Harry help with the weakness we perceive. He doesn't want to take over responsibility for the mission or give Harry guidance on how to complete it. He doesn't even want to know what it's about. He's only offering himself as a kind of bodyguard, and this to someone who's survived more confrontations with Voldemort than anyone else. It's insulting, really. Magpie: . And she wonders what the scene would have been like if > Lupin had shot back with his own meta commentary, demanding to know why > Harry had to play the lone boy martyr hero when so much was at stake > when it would have made far more sense to work together to destroy > Voldemort. Pippin: They *are* working together, but like "pillars four", not like one pillar trying to do everybody's job. Harry can't protect Tonks and her unborn child, and if the baby is a werewolf, there may be no one for them -- except Fenrir of course. Pippin having dismaying ideas of what would happen if a fetus transformed and wishing she'd never seen 'Alien' From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jan 12 21:44:46 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 21:44:46 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180607 more accurate to suggest it was the voice of the author. > > > > Magpie: > > > > However, I don't think any of that applies here to Harry, speaking for > > this reader. All I'd seen of Lupin/Tonks was a weird relationship where > > Lupin was never happy and Tonks was blissfully unaware of her husband's > > state of mind and everyone else said he should be with her and ignored > > his ambivalence as well. > > Pippin: > Tonks was not unaware of Lupin's state of mind, at least in HBP. They'd > discussed their relationship a lot according to what both of them say. Magpie: The point is Tonks is the one who thinks all they need is love, and everybody agrees with her, and that's the view that's given credit. That's what 'talking about it' seems to be. The only time Lupin looks particularly happy is about the birth of his son. Tonks is the one who's glowing and pink-haired when she's happy about having him. I'm not seeing Arwen/Aragorn from the LOTR movies here. I didn't doubt Aragorn wanted to be with Arwen and their love didn't see not real. PJ remembered to give me some heat from Aragorn's side so I didn't feel like Arwen was just constantly chasing him and moping over him and making him more uncomfortable than lovelorn. I never thought "He's just not that into you" about those two. Pippin: > I wasn't surprised when Lupin ducked out, because he said he was a coward > back in PoA, and I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop ever since. Magpie: Yes, unfortunately after everything I'd seen he didn't seem like a coward for leaving his wife to try to rid the world of Voldemort. He just seemed like a guy who didn't really want to be in the marriage and always thought it was a bad idea. All the talking they did always seemed to be about Lupin giving his objections and Tonks saying how they didn't matter to her (and everyone else saying they shouldn't matter). He still never seemed all that happy to be overruled there. Pippin: > > Daredevilry -- risking your life for thrills-- is more than compatible with > cowardice. Lupin has an old habit of drugging himself with danger to avoid > his responsibilities. The opportunity to do so is the downside of Gryffindor > bravery. Magpie: I can't think of any examples of Lupin drugging himself with danger. The problem still for me was in the end the "responsibilities" Lupin had never seemed happily embraced to begin with, so he and Tonks just seemed like the idiot couple. If he seemed cowardly it honestly felt to me like the cowardice was in not wanting to tell anybody that he actually really didn't want to be married, period, for whatever reasons. And it was all kind of pointless since Lupin just worked out these alleged problems off stage thanks to Harry's tantrum. Pippin: > > And that brings us to the downside of Gryffindor chivalry: > disempowerment. In order for someone to be a protector, someone else > has to be a weakling. Magpie: Not sure where this comes into anything. Lupin didn't seem to think Tonks was a weakling, nor did he think Harry and the Trio were weaklings. If the Dark Lord's taken over I wouldn't think anybody should be getting offended at somebody offering to help the three teenagers the old guy has decided have to destroy him themselves. Pippin: > > There's nothing wrong with helping someone who really needs it. But > Lupin is not offering Harry help with the weakness we perceive. He doesn't > want to take over responsibility for the mission or give Harry guidance > on how to complete it. He doesn't even want to know what it's about. > He's only offering himself as a kind of bodyguard, and > this to someone who's survived more confrontations with Voldemort > than anyone else. It's insulting, really. Magpie: What's insulting about it? Harry's survived his confrontations with Voldemort due to outside help or weird things happening. It seems like you're suggesting that the ego of 17-year-old who wants to be a big boy should be more important than the practical best thing to bring down Voldemort. I don't see how Lupin offering to come along to guard them or help them is insulting. > Magpie: > . And she wonders what the scene would have been like if > > Lupin had shot back with his own meta commentary, demanding to know why > > Harry had to play the lone boy martyr hero when so much was at stake > > when it would have made far more sense to work together to destroy > > Voldemort. > > Pippin: > They *are* working together, but like "pillars four", not like one pillar > trying to do everybody's job. Harry can't protect Tonks and her unborn child, and > if the baby is a werewolf, there may be no one for them -- except Fenrir > of course. Magpie: The Order isn't doing jack s*** about the Horcruxes, which is a bizarre. I think this is due mostly to Harry's personal heroism being what the author wants the story to be about than the most sensible plan for the task at hand. Lupin is hardly trying to do everybody's job by offering to be the adult acting like he's actually in a Resistance Movement. Sure there's good reason for Lupin to be around if his kid is a werewolf--though he's not ultimately doing that anyway. Lupin and Tonks both wind up abandoning the kid and getting themselves killed. Yet for some reason it's no longer being cowardly or dare devilish. It's fine for Harry to prefer Lupin staying with his wife and kid. I still don't buy his insults about it or his analysis of Lupin. > Pippin > having dismaying ideas of what would happen if a fetus > transformed and wishing she'd never seen 'Alien' -m (wondering why on earth whether or not werewolfism is passed from father to son is a question in the WW at this point since people ought to know by now if it works that way.) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 22:00:51 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:00:51 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180608 Magpie: The point is Tonks is the one who thinks all they need is love, and everybody agrees with her, and that's the view that's given credit. That's what 'talking about it' seems to be. The only time Lupin looks particularly happy is about the birth of his son. Tonks is the one who's glowing and pink-haired when she's happy about having him. I'm not seeing Arwen/Aragorn from the LOTR movies here. I didn't doubt Aragorn wanted to be with Arwen and their love didn't see not real. PJ remembered to give me some heat from Aragorn's side so I didn't feel like Arwen was just constantly chasing him and moping over him and making him more uncomfortable than lovelorn. I never thought "He's just not that into you" about those two. Alla: Oh yeah, Magpie me neither. I am not seeing here Aragorn/Arven either from movies or books, lOL. Well, they have less place in the books obviously, but still. In the movies I saw the way he looked at Arven and really that was all I needed. In the books, OMG I thought their story was described so beautifully. But I truly think that JKR cannot write romance well. Oh dear god, I truly doubt that she intended to write Lupin does not love Tonks thing, but where is the chemistry? Where is the love? Where are couple words about the way Remus looks at her or something like that? I mean, no I take my words back. I think Fleur and Bill are VERY well done ? sweet romantic and very brief too, and Molly and Arthur as well and Andromeda and Tad. She can write romance if she does not have to put it on center stage? But heeee, maybe I am misreading her intentions and she wanted to hint at Remus being in love with Sirius after all? I will happily take it. Remus showing up with Sirius made me giggle a lot. Magpie: Yes, unfortunately after everything I'd seen he didn't seem like a coward for leaving his wife to try to rid the world of Voldemort. He just seemed like a guy who didn't really want to be in the marriage and always thought it was a bad idea. All the talking they did always seemed to be about Lupin giving his objections and Tonks saying how they didn't matter to her (and everyone else saying they shouldn't matter). He still never seemed all that happy to be overruled there. Alla: He seemed miserable throughout HBP to me as well. But hey, I think holding hands was supposed to be the hint that he became happier or something? But even though I agree with you that daredevil he is not, I totally think that JKR agrees with Harry about his cowardice ? for whatever reason really ? either what Harry described OR even if he does not want to get married. Frankly, now when he has a kid I think kid is still his responsibility even if he does not love Tonks. I mean I know he accepted it, I am just saying that I think that he was running from it when he came to Harry and that Harry had a right to express his concerns and disagreement. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 12 22:01:35 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:01:35 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180609 > > Mike: > Hey Betsy, you're not old enough to remember TV dinners. > But this does bring up the whole Riddle-exploration of HBP. It > gave her readers a nice background story on whence came Voldemort, > and introduced the Horcruxes as theme for the Trio's Travels in > DH. But how did knowing Tom Riddle's story help Harry in actually > defeating Voldemort? I'm asking in earnest. There seemed to be one > heck of a lot of useless backstory in that book, useless to Harry, > not for the reader. > Pippin: Harry would not have trusted Dumbledore or his conclusions without some independent evidence, certainly not to the point of surrendering his life. > > > Betsy Hp: > > But yes, Voldemort's *abilities*, his power and stratigic > > skill needed to be horrifyingly formidable. > > Mike: > Yes! That's the kind of phrase I was looking for, "horrifyingly > formidable." That's what he was at the end of GoF, for me. He > lost that somewhere on the way to DH. He was no longer the Loki > (of Norse mythology) that I so wanted him to be. Pippin: I don't get it. Somehow Voldemort isn't getting credit for finding a way to take over the WW without a fight. He doesn't need spectacular combat spells (although he knows some.) All he needs is his ruthless determination to use means that other wizards find unacceptable, and his ability to keep his core supporters convinced they won't have to pay for their crimes. Voldemort doesn't need to publicly kill large numbers of wizards at once -- that sort of crude display is for Muggles. Yes, it doesn't seem very scary that in the background lots of people are disappearing or being killed, or tortured or made into refugees, because it's all happening very far away from Harry. And that, if you think about it, is pretty scary too. And very true to life. > > Betsy Hp: > > Seriously, for me, Draco and Snape were the "face" of Slytherin. > > That they didn't get redeemed in the end, that Harry never > > really saw them as people (that name thing doesn't work for me, > > too little, too late, too lame), and that *they* never got a > > chance to change was the biggest failure of the books, IMO. Pippin: Change into what? A useful citizen? An honored hero of the past? Oh wait, they did that. Draco got a wife, a child, and to all appearances a useful life. Snape got peace, his mission accomplished, and his memory celebrated. Both were freed from evil and slavery, which is what redemption means. AFAIK, it hasn't got a thing to do with saving the day. I could be wrong, but it doesn't sound like you want Draco and Snape to be redeemed, it sounds like you want them to be co-redeemers with Harry. Pippin From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 22:22:54 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:22:54 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180610 > Alla: > > Okay, I do not get it. Say Harry saw Lupin deciding to do some other > dangerous thing for the Order, which has nothing to do with Harry. > Say Harry decided to give Lupin the same lecture, or roughly the > same lecture as he gave him in this chapter. > > I will be the first one to say that this is NOT Harry's business. > But here Lupin comes to Harry to offer services. Those are the > thoughts Harry has about Lupin's situation; those ARE the reasons > why he rejects his help. You think Harry should have been quiet? > Okay, but how would the readers learn that those ARE the reasons? > > Do you know what I mean? If JKR agrees with Harry and wants reader > to know the reasons, I just do not see who would be MORE logical > person to express them. > > I mean, say Molly or Arthur or anybody decided to lecture Lupin on > this, I would again say - none of your business, but Harry did not > ASK Remus to offer his help, no? > > Are you saying that he has no right to respond? He was insulting > sure, but as Zara said - till Remus brought up James, he was harsh > but courteous. > > You know - bitter truth is better than sweet lies, etc? a_svirn: Except that it wasn't a grain of truth in those accusations. Lupin, a daredevil? Lupin, wanting to step into Sirius's shoes? What a pile of malicious nonsense. If he was leaving his wife it was precisely for the reasons he stated. All of them perfectly valid, by the way. Which were none of Harry's business, and even Tonks, scratch that, most especially Tonks would have been first to tell him so, if there was any truth in her. Lupin came to Harry to offer his services, yes. If Harry could not accept them, because he felt he would be doing Lupin and Tonks disservice, he should have said so like an adult he claimed to be, not throwing ridiculous accusations he didn't really mean. Of course, if he really were disgusted with Lupin, if he really thought him the worst sort of coward and really was ashamed of him then and only then he should have spoken his mind. But we know he didn't. He only did it so that Lupin and Tonks would reconcile. Harry insulted the man who just offered to lay his life for him, and who had risked the said life for him on a number of occasions and for what? So that Lupin would feel ashamed, return to his wife, kiss and make-up. What a self-righteous and utterly juvenile thing to do. Not to mention ungrateful. > Magpie: > > Even if Lupin didn't truly want to be with Tonks and really did have > a > horror of the danger he put her and the baby in (and a horror of > creating a baby that would be under the same stigma he was) I didn't > think that made him a coward--maybe because those thoughts always > seemed perfectly reasonable to me to begin with. I mean, Lupin is the > only werewolf here; he's the one who really knows what it's like and > really knows what he fears. And Harry's never been very good at > reading > situations before--here, in fact, Harry's blatantly putting his own > issues on Lupin in a way not that different than Sirius projected his > feelings about James on Harry. > > Alla: > > Sure, it is possible, but I still have a feeling that JKR agrees > with Harry here. He has issues with dead parents, but I do not see > anything not true in what he said about parents not leaving the kids > unless they have to. I mean, what I am trying to say is that I do > not see how his issue stops him from assessing the situation, if > nothing else it gives him more insight IMO. a_svirn: I suppose she does. And so does the entire WW, apparently. Otherwise they wouldn't have all gone into hiding with their families and leave it for childless seventeen-year-old adults to do all the fighting for them. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 12 23:40:54 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:40:54 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180611 > > Alla: > > But I truly think that JKR cannot write romance well. Oh dear god, I > truly doubt that she intended to write Lupin does not love Tonks > thing, but where is the chemistry? Where is the love? Where are > couple words about the way Remus looks at her or something like that? Pippin: Lupin is a werewolf, a "dangerous half-breed", in love with a witch -- that's Umbridge's worst nightmare. I think it makes sense that he would try not to show any desire for Tonks if he could help it. But nobody's explained why everyone feels that Tonks should marry Lupin if it's so obvious that he has no feelings for her. It's not like he's such a catch! (I mean, from the WW's pov. Obviously there are fans with intense crushes on him. But it doesn't seem he'd be the least bit glamorous or desirable to Molly or McGonagall.) Remember in SWM where it seems like he just hates the full moon outings so much, and yet in PoA he says they were the happiest times of his life? He also says that he was "young, thoughtless-- carried away with [my] own cleverness." (That's where I get the daredevil from.) But anyway, even if you don't buy the occlumency hint (PoA ch 14, "An odd, closed expression appeared on Lupin's face") Lupin is really good at concealing his feelings. When it comes to being two-faced, Draco doesn't hold a Hand of Glory to him. Egad, no wonder I thought he was ESE! But all this is just to explain that it's perfectly plausible to me that only people who know him far better than Harry does could see how much he longed for Tonks. Alla: > But heeee, maybe I am misreading her intentions and she wanted to > hint at Remus being in love with Sirius after all? I will happily > take it. Remus showing up with Sirius made me giggle a lot. Pippin: If she wanted to do that, she should have shown some tension between Sirius and Tonks. > Magpie: > Yes, unfortunately after everything I'd seen he didn't seem like a > coward for leaving his wife to try to rid the world of Voldemort. Pippin: Except that he doesn't know Harry is going to rid the world of Voldemort. All he knows is "Harry is our best hope. Trust him." That could mean anything. If Lupin doesn't trust Dumbledore's wisdom, then there's no reason to believe Harry can succeed. If he does, then Harry's the best judge of what kind of help he needs. Pippin From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Jan 13 00:55:48 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:55:48 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180612 > > Julie: > > > > This is how I understand it too. And isn't this how it pretty much > worked in Nazi Germany when it came to identifying Jews--if you had a > Jewish grandparent, i.e. you were of at least one-quarter Jewish > descent, then you were a "Jew." (Please correct me if I'm wrong, and > I may well be!) > > So in the WW you aren't pureblood if your blood is "tainted" by the > presence of a Muggle or Muggleborn within two generations. So it > seems to me. Though I'm not sure JKR ever specified such, I did get > the impression she was in fact alluding to Nazi Germany and Aryan > supremacy with the whole Pureblood supremacy issue. > > In reading this whole thread, I think we're confusing two things. I may need some help clarifying my thinking (which is a little fuzzy) particularly around the scientific stuff. It sounds as if some fans are trying to figure out their own system for definitions such as full blood, half blood, squib, etc. (And a squib of course is a muggle. But a squib differs from some muggles because a squib would have been born into family where one of the parents was a witch or a wizard. We KNOW that a squib CAN have two magical parents, because Neville's family was afraid that he was a squib, and both his parents were magical. The non-squib muggles would be muggles who had two non-magical parents). But the whole categorization in the Rowling-created magical universe is political. It's not really about parentage (although it uses parentage and magical ability to divide people) It's an excuse to demonize, discriminate against and oppress a population. I'm sure many people have read about how various groups in the U.S.A. were initially not categorized as "white", and were discriminated against (even the Chinese were considered "white" by definition in some places.) Who was considered white was not about skin color, nor was it really about race. It was about who would be given access to power and privilege. It was an artificial definition. And there are some parallels...because if you had an African parent and a European- American parent, you would be categorized as African-American, black, and could be sold as a slave. Even though you were a "half blood", you were still Black. (And as people have pointed out, they made rules about quarter bloods, eight bloods, sixteenth bloods). J.K.R. talked about this about three years ago. Isn't it on her website? She said that it was people like Lucius Malfoy who coined the terms muggle born, and pure blood and half blood. Harry was considered a "half blood", she said, because of his mother's grandparents. She discovered AFTER the fact (while she was in the Holocaust Museum) that the Nazis used the same system. The Nazis said that if you had a single Jewish grandparent, then you were Jewish. I suggest that the whole idea of muggle borns "stealing magic" (revealed for the first time in the last book) was the justification for expelling them from Hogwarts, taking their wands, and treating them like dirt. I suggest that JKR was using the way oppression, bigotry and prejudice work in our world. It doesn't work so well to say for example that people with brown eyes are inferior, and that people with blue, green, and hazel eyes will have rights, money, education, food, etc. and not say more about it. The oppressors have to come up with myths about the oppressed that JUSTIFY the oppression, and make those upholding the system comfortable with being prejudiced against and treating others badly. The idea that muggle borns stole magic was a lie to justify their mistreatment. If you look at the history of slavery in the U.S., there is all kinds of evidence presented about why African Americans should stay as slaves. They're not as smart, their brains are smaller (wasn't there a whole science that measured brains?), they're the descendants of (who was it?) in the Bible, etc. etc. There's got to be "reasons" to oppress people, or some people start thinking it's "wrong" and revolt. Susan From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Sun Jan 13 03:13:37 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:13:37 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180613 > Alla: > > Oh yeah, Magpie me neither. I am not seeing here Aragorn/Arven either from movies or books, lOL. Well, they have less place in the books obviously, but still. In the movies I saw the way he looked at Arven and really that was all I needed. In the books, OMG I thought their story was described so beautifully. But I truly think that JKR cannot write romance well. Oh dear god, I truly doubt that she intended to write Lupin does not love Tonks thing, but where is the chemistry? Where is the love? Where are couple words about the way Remus looks at her or something like that? Tiffany: I was feeling let down a bit by the romance in DH, I just didn't think the chemistry was there for some obviously good matches in the earlier books. I think JKR can write some good romantic stories & I was impressed by some of them in the novels, but it seemed like by DH she wasn't quite doing as good as she had there. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 03:56:07 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:56:07 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180614 > > Angel: > > But I'm saying it now if I haven't so before, this story is not > > Harry's it's Snape's!!! It always was :) Any explanation that > > excludes the Snape factor in Riddle gunning for Harry over > > Neville will undoubtedly fall short. > > Mike: > Whoa Angel, You can't do that! ;) You can't just leave us hanging > after a statement like that. C'mon girl, dish. LOL zgirnius: I can't say what Angel means by this, but the following seems true to me. Once the prophecy was made and reported (by, yup, Sev), whatever Voldemort chose, whether Voldemort chose Neville, and went after Harry as an afterthought, or vice versa, it was always going to be Harry who would be the Boy Who Lived. Not because of any innate property he possessed that set him apart from Neville, but because it is only his mother, not Alice, who would be given a chance to step aside by Lord Voldemort, as a favor to one Severus Snape. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 04:21:24 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 04:21:24 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180615 > > zgirnius: > > Did Harry start kicking furniture around in Aberforth's house? > a_svirn: > It wouldn't surprise me if Harry kicked Aberforth should Aberforth > call him a coward. zgirnius: An interesting hypothetical. I was, however, referring to the canon fact that Lupin kicked furniture. Then Harry, a page and a half later, called *him* a coward. The provocation which "justified" Lupin's kicking of furniture was that Harry dared to suggest James might think Lupin should stay with his child, when *Lupin* tried to manipulate Harry by dragging James into the conversation. As it happens, Lupin did then resort to physical violence. > > zgirnius: > > I beg to differ. Lupin was acting out of fear, and this can be said > > nicely (or, at any rate, without resorting to insults). > a_svirn: > Yes it can. Because acting out fear, is not the same thing as being a > coward. Every person in existence has acted out of fear once or > twice, at least. Even the great Harry Potter, when he panicked and > tried to run from the Grimauld Place, because he thought himself > possessed. Lupin's motivation here is very similar. zgirnius: What, then, to you, is a coward? My dictionary calls it someone who shows "disgraceful" fear. This seems a rather subjective call to make, whether any given exhibition of fear is 'disgraceful' or not. (And, leaving a new, and pregnant, bride just like that, without discussing it with her, and because it is "for her good", strikes me as an action I *would* call 'disgraceful'). I would not distinguish between the two, exept to note that 'acting out of fear' is not insulting, whereas 'coward' is. I agree that Harry was rude, and also believe he nailed the substance of the situation. > a_svirn: > He was doing both ? acting from his personal fears about the baby and > for the sake of the WW and defeating Voldemort. And the former was > not Harry's business. zgirnius: If he was acting on behalf of the WW, why is it that all his explanations of his actions were about Tonks and the baby? Even if you are right, surely poor Harry could be forgiven for thinking that 1) Lupin was acting for the reasons he stated, and 2) it was OK for him to express opinions about matters Lupin insisted on bringing up in conversation. > a_svirn: > Of course he wouldn't. It doesn't follow, however, that he had any > right to lecture Lupin at all, let alone to insult him. zgirnius: I'm sorry, but anyone who rants about their relationship to someone, cannot complain when that someone decides to offer his or her opinion. I agree these are deeply private and personal matters, but the way to avoid the intrusion of others into them, is not to air them in public. > a_svirn: > I don' see it. Lupin said that Tonks would be OK. Which means that he > had thought it over and concluded that she wasn't in any immediate > danger. And what sort of danger she would be while staying with her > mother and under the Fidelius protection, anyway? zgirnius: Let's see. Maybe she'd get all depressed and not be able to do magic, because her new husband had left her without so much as a by your leave? Anyway - was Andromeda under Fidelius? I don't recall reading that, and it makes little sense that Ted left if she was. I thought her safety consisted of her undeniably pure, Black blood. From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Jan 13 04:19:45 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 04:19:45 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180616 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rlevatter" wrote: > snip > > "And note, Harry, that Voldemort, with only one Muggle parent, > chose not to go after Neville, with two magical parents and a > long lineage of magic, despite his professed belief that those > are the only wizards of value. Instead he went after you, whom > he saw as just like him, even though you have two magical parents > like Neville while he had only one." > > My point has less to do with bloodline definitions and more > with trying to understand the logic of what Dumbledore was > trying to tell Harry, or what Voldemort's thinking was. When > I rephrase it as I did above, is Voldemort's logic clear to > you? In a strong sense, neither Harry nor Neville are like > Voldemort in the circumstances of their birth. > Lord Voldemort saw Harry as "just like him" because Harry was NOT a pure blood. The definition of half blood as defined by JKR is that if you have ONE grandparent who is NOT a witch or wizard then you are a half-blood. And, therefore, lesser. It doesn't matter, in the Death Eater world (or to the Nazis) if it's your grandmother who is a muggle (or Jewish) or if it's your mother who is a Muggle (or Jewish)....if you don't have all four grandparents who are witches or wizards (or Aryans) then you are a half blood (or Jewish). So Lord Voldemort DID see Harry as like him.....note the quote from Tom Riddle in the Chamber of Secrets ..he's speaking to Harry: "...There are strange likenesses between us, after all. Even you must have noticed. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles.." Tom Riddle/LV knows that Lily Evans Potter was a witch, and that her parents were Muggles. He knows that his father was not a wizard and his mother was a witch. Yet he calls himself AND Harry half bloods, because at least ONE of Harry's grandparents (actually two) were Muggles. Susan From AllieS426 at aol.com Sun Jan 13 04:52:58 2008 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 04:52:58 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180617 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > But this does bring up the whole Riddle-exploration of HBP. It > gave her readers a nice background story on whence came Voldemort, > and introduced the Horcruxes as theme for the Trio's Travels in > DH. But how did knowing Tom Riddle's story help Harry in actually > defeating Voldemort? I'm asking in earnest. There seemed to be one > heck of a lot of useless backstory in that book, useless to Harry, > not for the reader. > Allie: Actually, I think what he saw in the Pensieved helped Harry understand Tom Riddle and his wanting to leave his Horcruxes in deeply magical places. It's a big part of the reason that Harry knew all along there was a horcrux at Hogwarts. (And he saw the occasion when it was hidden, when Riddle came to apply for a job, and it led him to realize it was in the RoR.) It may even have helped him understand why Riddle would have hidden one at Gringotts. If I remember, he thinks back to how formidable the bank seemed to him the first time he saw it. Allie (who thinks you'd have to be mad to try and rob Gringotts ;) ) From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 06:49:01 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 06:49:01 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180618 a_svirn: > At least, Lupin *tried* to do > something. If it wasn't for his fractured relationship with Tonks his > offer would have been perfectly reasonable. They could use help, and > he was an asset in the Defence from the Dark Arts. Even his rather > low self-esteem was an asset in this case, since he wouldn't mind > taking orders from a teen-ager. Add to that that he really couldn't > do anything to help his own family under the circumstances, and he > was really an ideal choice. I am sure even Tonks herself would have > agreed to that ? being an Auror and all. The only problem was that > his decision was quite obviously one-sided, he didn't consult Tonks > or asked her opinion. He couldn't face the consequences of his > marriage ? which is of course, bad form. Still I'd say Harry had no > business to insult him. Except, that it seemed to have worked for > Lupin, so maybe he needed it. > > a_svirn I have to say that I read that passage exactly as you did. Even without taking the view that Lupin was unhappy with Tonks, I was hoping that Harry would take him up on the offer. After all, Harry was completely clueless on his Horcrux hunt with Dumbledore in the cave. They *needed* someone with Lupin's skills. Snape might have been even better, but he was busy. While I'm sure that Tonks was happy to have the emotional support during her pregnancy, she might have been willing to give that up in order to hasten the end of Voldemort. Who, after all, was not only egging her aunt on to kill her, but whose puppet ministry was targeting her father as well. Not to go too off-topic, but there were a few moments in the series when I read Harry's reaction to something and just went, "Huh?" This scene with Lupin was one of them. The other one that sticks out in my mind is the Stan Shunpike stuff with Scrimgeour. It wasn't even that Harry's reactions here were over-the-top. They seemed just plain nutty. Montavilla47 From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 07:15:05 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 07:15:05 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180619 > Alla: > > Sure, he had no right to be insulting, but does it matter really? I > mean if I believe that he had a right to say the essense of what he > said, does it make that much of a difference if he said the hurtful > things nicely or rudely? Those things ARE still hurtful to Remus but > they are also truth in my view. > > The issue is whether Harry had a right to say that Lupin shoud not > leave kid and wife, no? If he said it nicely, you would still > disagree, right? Montavilla47: Alla, Alla! Don't leave that opening for us! After all, eighty percent of the bad!Snape argument is that he says things in a hurtful manner. I believe that a further five percent is his unfair points-taking, and the remaining fifteen percent is the hair? From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jan 13 07:29:20 2008 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 07:29:20 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180620 > a_svirn: > > Lupin came to Harry to offer his services, yes. If Harry could not > accept them, because he felt he would be doing Lupin and Tonks > disservice, he should have said so like an adult he claimed to be, > not throwing ridiculous accusations he didn't really mean. Of course, > if he really were disgusted with Lupin, if he really thought him the > worst sort of coward and really was ashamed of him then and only then > he should have spoken his mind. But we know he didn't. He only did it > so that Lupin and Tonks would reconcile. Harry insulted the man who > just offered to lay his life for him, and who had risked the said > life for him on a number of occasions and for what? So that Lupin > would feel ashamed, return to his wife, kiss and make-up. What a > self-righteous and utterly juvenile thing to do. Not to mention > ungrateful. > Julie: I thought Harry just got fed up with Lupin's self-pity (I know I groaned when once AGAIN Lupin started going on about how he was ruining everyone's life--want a lifetime supply of cheese to go with that lifelong whine you've been indulging in Lupin?). And I also got the impression that Harry thought of his own parentless life, and heard in Lupin's words intent to abandon *his* child to a fatherless existence. Let me quote (thanks, Carol): "And the child--the child-- [Remus pulls out handfuls of his own hair.] My kind don't usually breed! it will be like me. I am convinced of it. How can I forgive myself, when I knowingly risked passing on my own condition to an innocent child! And if by some miracle, it is not like me, then it will be better off, a hundred times so, without a father of whom it must be ashamed!".... "It will be better off, a hundred times so, without a father of whom it will be ashamed!" does not translate to me as "I want to help you so that my child can grow up safe and secure" but rather as "I want to run away and hide from my potential pain, never mind if that will cause even more pain for my child than staying." Harry knows what the pain of abandonment feels like, and I don't see why anyone would blame him for losing his temper with Lupin. And yes, his accusations aren't completely accurate, and he said things he really didn't mean, but isn't that what losing your temper is all about? It's not about rational discourse, just as words spoken out of fear or desperation (Lupin) aren't either. I'd also point out that courage isn't just a physical thing. Lupin isn't afraid to face Voldemort or to die. He IS afraid to take a chance on loving someone, be it his wife, his child, or the son of an old friend. He'd rather avoid any intimacy, as he so often did with Harry, taking any choice away from that other person involved, all to protect himself and avoid emotional pain. That is giving in to fear, and that is cowardly, IMO. On that one I think Harry was right on the mark. He could have said it in a kinder way, he could have said it without involving his own emotions, but again what is losing your temper but involving your emotions and abandoning your rationality? Julie, who really wanted to kick Lupin in the butt while reading this scene. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 13 10:35:37 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:35:37 -0000 Subject: Occlumency lessons WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180621 Annemehr wrote in : << I accept DD's explanation that LV first became aware of this during the attack on Arthur Weasley (but *how* does he know? -- actually this bugs me). My best guess is that LV received *something* in his direction if Harry's emotions were strong enough. >> That's what I thought until last week, when I collected quotes from OoP for my post about Arthur not dying.Here's where Harry and the Weasley kids portkey to Sirius's house: <> Sirius shouting 'OUT!' was Kreachy's opportunity to go on a long visit to Narcissa. Kreachy knew that Arthur had been injured; he must have heard that from Phineas Nigellus's portrait alerting Sirius; he coud tell Narcissa that DD's side knew that Arthur had been injured very soon after it happened. Phineas Nigellus had heard everything Harry told DD, and Kreachy could overhear as much of it as Phineas Nigellus told Sirius, which might include that DD knew because Harry had lived it in his own head; he may well have been more communicative (tho' just as snotty) to Sirius, his last descendent and an alleged adult, than he was to Harry. It may be that LV *never* felt Harry sharing his mind, any more than he ever felt the destruction of his Horcruxes. It may be that he learned of Harry sharing his mind only because Kreachy told Narcissa and Narcissa told LV. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 13 10:39:43 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:39:43 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180622 Magpie wrote in : << why on earth whether or not werewolfism is passed from father to son is a question in the WW at this point since people ought to know by now if it works that way. >> The Fabulous Beasts book says that the only way people are infected with werewolfism is by being bitten, which sounds like stating that werewolfism is not inherited. If that part was written by Newt Scamander rather than by J. K. Rowling, then the WW experts did know that werewolfism is not passed from father to son, but Lupin didn't believe them. Considering the social stigma against werewolves, and the resultant feral dirtiness and unattractiveness of most werewolves, I believe it would be very rare for a werewolf to impregnate a non-werewolf, and most such cases would be hushed up: if the mother admitted having the baby, she would claim that the father was someone else. Thus, many wizarding folk would have never heard of a werewolf begetting a child and therefore believe that it had never happened before and that the results were therefore unknown. As for female werewolves, I believe that the physical transformation is much too hard on a fetus and they therefore miscarry after the first or very occasionally the second Full Moon of their pregnancy. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 14:33:15 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:33:15 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180623 > Montavilla47: > > Alla, Alla! Don't leave that opening for us! After all, eighty > percent of the bad!Snape argument is that he says things > in a hurtful manner. > > I believe that a further five percent is his unfair points-taking, > and the remaining fifteen percent is the hair? > Alla: LOLOLOL. NO, don't you know - anybody who does not like Snape does so because of his greasy hair. There is no other reason to dislike Snape - his appearance IS the only reason But seriously though - what did I say that contradicts my views on Snape, I have no idea. Harry was RUDE, no question about it. MY point was that he was rude while speaking the truth. I mean, I thought that the debating topic was whether he WAS indeed speaking the truth. What I am trying to say is that even if he was saying it in a nice words, a_svirn ( and you I guess, and other people) would have still disagreed with substance of what he said? My POV is same as Zara - that he was rude, but nailed the substance of what was going on. Snape was rude and wrong too many many times ( as far as my view goes of course) From stephab67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 16:30:58 2008 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:30:58 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180624 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: Montavilla47: A crowd of people that are specified as being the families of students who were fighting in the castle and shopkeepers from Hogsmeade. Had JKR wanted to clue us in that the crowd included the Slytherin students who had left, she could have said, "leading a crowd that looked like the families of the fighting students, shopkeepers, and a few of Slytherins who had left earlier." Had it been me, I might have added for good measure, "Harry thought he recognized a tall, weedy Slytherin as someone he'd taken class with for six years, but it was hard to tell without the school uniform." Steph: I realize I'm jumping into this really late in the game, but it occurred to me that JKR *might* have written that Slytherins came back and it got cut in editing. I think there have been a couple other incidences of her remembering something she wrote, only to recall later that it didn't end up in the final version of the book. I know I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, but as we know her memory is rather faulty and therefore this might have been the actual scenario. I too read between the lines that some Slytherins came back, based on Phineas Nigellus's comment. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 17:22:23 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:22:23 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180625 Susan McGee wrote: > (And a squib of course is a muggle. But a squib differs from some muggles because a squib would have been born into family where one of the parents was a witch or a wizard. We KNOW that a squib CAN have > two magical parents, because Neville's family was afraid that he was > a squib, and both his parents were magical. The non-squib muggles > would be muggles who had two non-magical parents). Carol responds: Actually, that's not quite accurate. A Muggle is a a person with no magical powers and no (known) magical ancestors. (Evidently, genes from those unknown magical ancestors are sometimes activated in Muggle offspring, producing Muggle-born witches and wizards, but as JKR's attempts to explain this phenomenon are all off-page and her knowledge of genetics is apparently limited, I won't go there.) A Squib, OTOH, has, as you say, either one or two magical parents, and is therefore *not* a Muggle. He or she is a Pure-Blood or Half-Blood who somehow fails to develop magical powers. (The narrator at one point refers to Filch as a "failed wizard.") Such people can pass as Muggles, as Mrs. Figg does, or live in the WW as Filch does, surrounded by Witches and Wizards who regard them as inferior. (It appears that Squibs, unlike Muggles, can see Hogwarts and communicate with cats, but they can't see Dementors or cast spells. The chief difference between Squibs and Muggles, aside from their "blood," is cultural. Squibs know about and can choose to live in the WW (though they can't attend Hogwarts as they'd fail all their courses), and they're not covered by the Statute of Secrecy (which would be absurd and pointless, given that they're born into magical or partly magical families. As JKR says in an interview, IIRC, and Ron says in CoS, a Squib is essentially the opposite of a Muggle-born, a nonmagical child born to magical parents (or a magical parent) in contrast to a magical child born to nonmagical parents. Vernon Dursley is a Muggle. Argus Filch is a Squib. Even though they're both eminently dislikeable, there's all the difference in the world between their attitudes toward magic and the WW. Chiefly cultural, I realize, but they are who they are because one was born into a Muggle family and the other into a magical family. One refuses to acknowledge that magic exists, even when it's used against him and his family; the other secretly studies Qwikspell courses, hoping to somehow live up to his Wizarding heritage. The Black family burns the names of family members who marry "Muggles" (most likely Muggle-borns, as in the case of Ted Tonks and Andromeda Black) off the family tapestry. They do the same with family members who turn out to be Squibs. But they have no Muggle offspring to burn off the tapestry; Wizards and Witches do not give birth to Muggles, who have no (known) Wizarding blood. It's as impossible as a Witch and a Wizard giving birth to a House-Elf (or the blond, light-eyed Malfoys giving birth to a black-eyed, black-haired child who resembles Severus Snape). Carol, who would be considered a Muggle, not a Squib, if she could somehow enter the WW From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 13 17:57:26 2008 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 13 Jan 2008 17:57:26 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 1/13/2008, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1200247046.12.71731.m45@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180626 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday January 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 comet_buster at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 17:57:42 2008 From: comet_buster at yahoo.com (Adam) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:57:42 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180627 "Carol" wrote: "A Squib, OTOH, has, as you say, either one or two magical parents, and is therefore *not* a Muggle. He or she is a Pure-Blood or Half-Blood who somehow fails to develop magical powers. (The narrator at one point refers to Filch as a "failed wizard.") Such people can pass as Muggles, as Mrs. Figg does, or live in the WW as Filch does, surrounded by Witches and Wizards who regard them as inferior. (It appears that Squibs, unlike Muggles, can see Hogwarts and communicate with cats, but they can't see Dementors or cast spells." Adam: I agree with your break down of Squib vs. Muggle. Having knowlage for the magical world and being able to see things like wizards and witches but not being one puts you in our own catagory, which is why JKR did not just refer to those born to witches and wizards with no magical powers as muggles. Adam From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 18:29:04 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:29:04 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180628 a_svirn wrote: > > I don' see it. Lupin said that Tonks would be OK. Which means that he had thought it over and concluded that she wasn't in any immediate danger. And what sort of danger she would be while staying with her mother and under the Fidelius protection, anyway? > zgirnius replied: > Let's see. Maybe she'd get all depressed and not be able to do magic, because her new husband had left her without so much as a by your leave? > > Anyway - was Andromeda under Fidelius? I don't recall reading that, and it makes little sense that Ted left if she was. I thought her safety consisted of her undeniably pure, Black blood. > Carol responds: I've snipped the rest of zgirnius's excellent post, every word of which I agree with, to add that the possibility of Tonks's losing her powers as the result of depression over Lupin's abandonment of her and her child is excellent and has canon support to back it. She lost her Metamorphmagus powers when he refused to accept her love. What would happen if she felt that he had rejected not only her but the unborn child he "knowingly" (his word) brought into existence? Would she become another Merope Gaunt? Regarding Andromeda's being under Fidelius, clearly she wasn't. Both she and Ted were Crucio'd for information. Why he wasn't stripped of his wand at that point is unclear, but, certainly, he would not have gone on the run if the Order had immediately placed him, his wife, and their pregnant daughter under the Fidelius Charm. (Surely, Tonks could have done it, and protected Lupin as well? But either the adults are incompetent in this novel, or they're not thinking clearly.) As you say, Andromeda's protection (which didn't prevent her from being tortured for information, any more than it protected the Longbottoms long before) consisted in her being a Pure-Blood. Tonks, the Half-Blood "brat" of the marriage that caused her mother to be burned off the family tapestry, is under no such protection, as we see in OoP when Bellatrix tries to kill her own niece. And now, as we see in "The Dark Lord Rising," Bellatrix has been ordered to "prune" her family tree, which has been further contaminated, in LV's and Bellatrix's view, by her marriage to a werewolf. Lupin does not know, of course, of this specific mission, though he certainly knows that Bellatrix's vendetta against her niece can only be intensified by her marriage. He says himself that he shouldn't have married her because he's "made her an outcast" by doing so. At which point, unprovoked by Harry, he kicks the chair he has earlier overturned and accuses Tonks's family, groundlessly, as far as I can see, of being disgusted by their daughter's marriage to a creature reviled by the WW. And, still unprovoked by Harry, he starts pulling his own hair and expressing his fear that the child he wants to abandon will be a werewolf like himself, trying to persuade himself that "it" will be "a hundred times" better off without him (DH Am. ed. 213). Harry's reaction, "So you want to dump her and the kid and run off with us," may not be courteous or respectful, but Lupin's conduct before and after the remark, is not, IMO, worthy of respect. He is thinking, not of the welfare of his wife and child, but of himself as a reviled and dangerous creature (who nevertheless can somehow "protect" the boy who has fought Voldemort and lived and "the most gifted witch of her age," as he calls Hermione in PoA). And when Harry says, "If the new regime thinks Muggle-borns are bad, what will they do to a half-werewolf whose father's in the Order? {Oops, Harry; his mother's in the Order, too.] My father died trying to protect my mohter and me, and you reckon he'd tell you to abandon your kid to go on an adventure with us?" Lupin neither acknowledges the danger he's placing his child in nor answers the question about James, instead spluttering "How dare you? this is not about a desire for--for danger or personal glory--how dare you suggest such a--" That angry, incoherent, defensive, and completely irrelevant response, which evades both of Harry's questions, prompts Harry's remarks about Lupin's wanting to be a daredevil (like Sirius)--an idea suggested by Lupin's own words about danger and personal glory, along with the charge of cowardice, which relates to running away from his responsibilities. Lupin draws his wand and knocks Harry against the wall, running out and slamming the door like an angry teenager. That he returns to Tonks and later speaks of Harry affectionately on Pottercast, saying that "[Harry's] instincts . . . are good and nearly always right" (441), surely indicates that he has come to see the truth in Harry's (instinctive) view of him and the justice in the charges Harry has made against him, and, as Harry understands when he hears the words, his view of Harry as "a symbol of everything for which we are fighting: the power of good, the power of innocence, and the need to keep resisting," Lupin has forgiven him for the "terrible things he had said when they last met" (441), "terrible" being Harry's interpretation, not Lupin's. Likewise, his naming Harry as his child's godfather is surely a symbolic response to Harry's defense of the then unborn "half-werewolf" who needed his father's protection much more than three newly adult wizards trusted by Dumbledore to accomplish a dangerous mission on their own could possibly need it. (It's entirely possible, though, of course, I'm speculating, that Teddy Lupin might not even have been born had Remus not returned to his pregnant wife. Carol, who forgot to mention in her post on Squibs and Muggles that a "squib" in RL is a firecracker that fizzles and goes out, failing to produce glorious pyrotechnics just as a Squib in the WW fails to produce magic--an appropriate, if cruel term that doesn't apply to Muggles, whom no one expects to be magical From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 20:05:42 2008 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:05:42 -0000 Subject: Occlumency lessons WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180629 > Annemehr wrote in > : > > << I accept DD's explanation that LV first became aware of this during > the attack on Arthur Weasley (but *how* does he know? -- actually this > bugs me). My best guess is that LV received *something* in his > direction if Harry's emotions were strong enough. >> Catlady replied: > > That's what I thought until last week, when I collected quotes from > OoP for my post about Arthur not dying.Here's where Harry and the > Weasley kids portkey to Sirius's house: > > < from beneath his feet, his hand was glued to the kettle; he was > banging into the others as they all sped forwards in a swirl of > colours and a rush of wind, the kettle pulling them onwards . . . > until his feet hit the ground so hard his knees buckled, the kettle > clattered to the ground, and somewhere close at hand a voice said: > > 'Back again, the blood-traitor brats. Is it true their father's dying?' > > 'OUT!' roared a second voice. >> > > Sirius shouting 'OUT!' was Kreachy's opportunity to go on a long visit > to Narcissa. Kreachy knew that Arthur had been injured; he must have > heard that from Phineas Nigellus's portrait alerting Sirius; he coud > tell Narcissa that DD's side knew that Arthur had been injured very > soon after it happened. > > Phineas Nigellus had heard everything Harry told DD, and Kreachy could > overhear as much of it as Phineas Nigellus told Sirius, which might > include that DD knew because Harry had lived it in his own head; he > may well have been more communicative (tho' just as snotty) to Sirius, > his last descendent and an alleged adult, than he was to Harry. Annemehr: Ooooh, good catch! So -- we don't know what Kreacher heard Nigellus say, but it may have been sufficient to explain everything to LV, and was certainly enough to be going on with... And -- we don't know what LV may have told Snape, who would have passed the information on to Dumbledore, but it may have included the way he found out about Harry's scar-o-vision. Whatever that was. I mean, both could have happened -- that LV sensed Harry's presence during the attack, and Kreacher's story confirmed and fleshed it out. Then we are left to judge for ourselves whether DD is meant to be telling the truth (however he could have known it), for literary purposes. Catlady: > It may be that LV *never* felt Harry sharing his mind, any more than > he ever felt the destruction of his Horcruxes. It may be that he > learned of Harry sharing his mind only because Kreachy told Narcissa > and Narcissa told LV. > Annemehr: Hmmm... Well, the scene in the Atrium really looks to me that LV sensed from afar that Harry was shouting about the loss of the prophecy. But I couldn't really prove that to anyone who, like Mike, thought that LV was actually hiding in the Atrium at the time and simply heard Harry's voice. It's just that, I can't see any reason for LV to actually be in a place that his whole plan was concocted for him to be able to avoid, until his temper gets the better of him *after* he learns the prophecy's gone. Also, literarily, the scene seems to be written to tell us that LV arrived just as Bella began screaming to him that it wasn't her fault. Also, you'd have to believe that LV would deploy Kreacher and the DEs according to the plan, without being able to sense that Harry had receive the "Sirius under torture" message. But clearing the Ministry of guards and putting the DEs in place seems awful risky if you don't even know if your bait is set in the trap. Yet, as explanations to one of the big mysteries, I have to admit they aren't very definitive, are they? As for what we can learn from LV's and Harry's symptoms in DH, I'll need a reread -- with a pen and notebook -- but that book doesn't really seem to have cleared any of it up. Added to the confusion, more like. We'll see. I wonder if your OoP find had anything to do with why Alla felt it was ambiguous in the first place? Annemehr From angellima at xtra.co.nz Sun Jan 13 20:10:44 2008 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:10:44 +1300 Subject: Explain this passage Message-ID: <001801c85620$61393360$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 180630 Mike: First off, I wanted to correct the attribution: the above was written by RL, not Potioncat. PC's good, but she's not *that* good. So let's not put words in her mouth. Angel: Thanks for the correction. PC was kind enough to correct me on the quiet ;) - I have a terrible flare up of pterygium as a not so fond reminder of my recent excursion from the seriousness of life :) so please once again, pardon the transgression :) the eyesight is still sore but I owe you another reply Mike so will start with this :) Mike: Now, on to your question; Someone pointed out, on a different thread I think, that Voldemort would not have stopped with Harry if he had succeeded in killing him. He would have taken out Neville, too. He just picked the Potters as his *first* victims, he wasn't thinking there was anything to stop him from proceeding to the Longbottoms after that. I'm sure the Longbottoms were in hiding too, maybe LV just hadn't found them yet. Angel: Yet something propelled Voldemort to seek out Potter first. The way the Fidelius was whispered by the group in Rosmerta's bar in PoA spoke of a serious spell difficult to carry out and impenetrable. Dumbledore in this talk with Harry promised to out the secrets (well the ones relating to the prophesy anyhow) and I agree with him that Voldemort chose Harry to be his adversary. Even if Voldemort planned to off poor Nevvy also, he chose Harry first and thus Harry was the chosen one. Why he did so, is the dilemma methinks :) Mike: But as far as the whole blood thing; I don't think Voldemort really cared that much, despite what Dumbledore said. I think the pure- blood mannia was for his followers consumption. He needed a hook to recruit them and to keep them focused on their tasks, a reason d'etre if you will, giving them something *they* believed in to pursue Voldemort's goals. Give the DEs somebody to lord over and they won't notice how much self determination they've lost to Voldemort. Another Hitler parallel, with the DEs playing the part of the Gestapo. Angel: I'm of two minds about this. First of all, my reply was to the "pureblood" content of Harry and Volders in the prophesy and as explained by Dumbledore in RL's question. Also I think Voldemort did seriously care about tainting the purebloods even though he was as far removed from a pureblood as possible barring Muggles. Having killed his own father and family, feeling responsible for the death of his mother, he was full of self-loathing (was he a psychopath or sociopath?) The "them" he blamed was himself, I guess in someway it was a form of self-purging? (here again though I won't bang my head against my desk as I write it this time, but just how daft are these people who followed a halfblood to restore purebloodism??? Honestly!) At the same time I do think you're right - purebloodism was a means to an end if we are to take Voldemort at his/Quirrell's word that there is only power. He only sought power.. What exactly those powers he gained were that were beyond the scope of Dumbledore's conscience let alone the abilities of a baby, I still have to discover, marvel, gasp and quiver at!... okay will stop this now before I resort to banging head on desk again. > Angel: > > > The prophecy was another farce, I've tried everywhich way to > scramble sense out of it, and it hurts my feeble brain, lol. I > gather JKR meant for Voldemort to have seen himself in Harry > long before his soul latched onto Harry, however both her and > Dumbledore aren't doing a good job of 'splainin :) Mike: Actually Angel, I don't think the prophesy had anything to do with *how* Voldemort saw himself in Harry. His choice of Harry over Neville, if he really made that choice (see above), was irrespective of what the prophesy said. As Dumbledore 'splained, both boys fit the prophesy description. Dumbledore thought Voldemort picked Harry because of their similar heritage. Angel: I have the terrible propensity to hide my actual point in subtexts lol. I meant the prophecy itself was beyond ambiguous and I guess once again I vented at the wrong spot ;)...still I do think Voldemort chose Harry. I cannot remember the actual prophesy, but do recall, that the dark lord will himself mark... ra ra ra the little twit who will bring him down...so the prophesy did speak of the dark lord CHOOSING his own adversary and like Dumbledore I believed Voldemort chose Harry because he saw himself in Harry and knew what he was capable of, a half-blood! He saw himself in Harry because of the blood connection I suppose - Muggle blood. He chose that which he loathed and he loathed that which he feared or feared that which he loathed? Either way, that was Voldemort. Of course, Voldemort not being particularly bright, I strongly suspect Harry was chosen because of the messenger, i.e Severus. Mike: Maybe DD didn't want to dishearten Harry any more by telling him, "Sorry mate, it was the luck of the draw." Trying to, I don't know, make Harry seem special, like he's not that much different from Voldemort and that he can be just as great as he is? I'm floundering here. ;) Because DD's story doesn't make sense to me either. Angel: But Dumbledore here said he would speak to Harry as an adult and reveal all that he had blanketed him from in the past years. Which again brings my head very close to my desk in force :) and to another track. Using people was okay as long as it was Dumbledore doing the using, according to Dumbledore. He used Harry, yet recoiled at the idea of McScrooge using Harry to buffer the wizarding community. So Dumbledore fed Harry with "you're special ideas" but refused to allow others to share in the same notion? Yes Dumbledore makes sense to me but not very good sense > Angel: > But I'm saying it now if I haven't so before, this story is not > Harry's it's Snape's!!! It always was :) Any explanation that > excludes the Snape factor in Riddle gunning for Harry over > Neville will undoubtedly fall short. Mike: Whoa Angel, You can't do that! ;) You can't just leave us hanging after a statement like that. C'mon girl, dish. LOL Angel: Oooh! You didn't know? (beg...the kind Voldemort the twat is incapable of beaming lol) Well what are the chances that Lily's closeted wannabe lover brings Volders the prophecy? An incomplete prophecy to be exact! :) Voldemort is of course spurred to hunt for Harry's head all because Severus asked to spare Lily? What if it was Severus who translated the prophecy and passed Voldemort his interpretation? Voldemort did ask him to explain the flounders of the almighty useless wand, so Voldemort held a certain respect if not dependency on Severus' brilliance. don't have time to draft this out especially as am at work, but here are a few points: It was Snape who gave Harry reason to seek out the philosopher's stone. Snape who provided the answer to the secret in the chamber (Draco and Harry's duel) Snape who caused Peter to escape from the shack and thus cause the Harry/Hermione timetravelling and all it contained Snape the Death Eater???? Whoo! Snape who weakened Harry's mind (not intentionally but by the nature of occlumency itself!) that led everyone to the MoM including Volders HBP all about Snape!!! Yeeeee! Then in Deathly Hallows ... well I won't go there :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rlevatter at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 19:54:42 2008 From: rlevatter at yahoo.com (rlevatter) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:54:42 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180631 Susan, responding to a question of mine, notes: > Lord Voldemort saw Harry as "just like him" because Harry was NOT a > pure blood. The definition of half blood as defined by JKR is that if > you have ONE grandparent who is NOT a witch or wizard then you are a > half-blood. And, therefore, lesser. ... > So Lord Voldemort DID see Harry as like him.....note the quote from > Tom Riddle in the Chamber of Secrets ..he's speaking to Harry: > > "...There are strange likenesses between us, after all. Even you must > have noticed. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles.." > > Tom Riddle/LV knows that Lily Evans Potter was a witch, and that her > parents were Muggles. He knows that his father was not a wizard and > his mother was a witch. Yet he calls himself AND Harry half bloods, > because at least ONE of Harry's grandparents (actually two) were > Muggles. The CoS passage is VERY helpful in clarifying Dumbledore's words to Harry in OotP. Apparently Voldemort and Dumbledore think alike on this issue, or at least Dumbledore knows how Voldemort thinks on this issue. (Possible, I guess, that Harry told Dumbledore what Riddle said.) Two questions to Susan: 1. Do you have specific textural support for the statement "The definition of half blood as defined by JKR is that if you have ONE grandparent who is NOT a witch or wizard then you are a half-blood." Is there something in the novel that talks of grandparents in the definition, or are you quoting JKR's public commentary? or 2. Is your support of this claim Tom Riddle's very statement, as quoted. The Riddle statement is interesting, in that he is seeing "strange likenesses" between himself and Harry that are not exactly incidental to his own actions: Both orphans, because Riddle himself killed Harry's parents. Both raised by Muggles, because Riddle killed Harry's magical parents. (It would be like taking someone, forcibly commit plastic surgery on him so he looks like you, and then commenting on the "strange likeness" between the two of you. Strange.) So the only specific likeness mentioned by Riddle that he himself did not cause is the very issue under contention: whether Harry is, like Voldemort, a half-blood, even though Voldemort had a muggle parent and Harry didn't. Now, it may be the case that (one can argue) the Riddle in the diary didn't know these strange likenesses were caused by him because they were done by his later self (though he seems to know things that he hadn't learned in his first 16 years--how could he know, for example, that Harry WAS an orphan without knowing WHY Harry was an orphan?). And the CoS passage certainly makes the point, stressed later in the books, that Voldemort himself marked Harry as the one like him, capable of defeating him. RL From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 21:02:55 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:02:55 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180632 > zgirnius: > What, then, to you, is a coward? My dictionary calls it someone who > shows "disgraceful" fear. This seems a rather subjective call to > make, whether any given exhibition of fear is 'disgraceful' or not. > (And, leaving a new, and pregnant, bride just like that, without > discussing it with her, and because it is "for her good", strikes me > as an action I *would* call 'disgraceful'). I would not distinguish > between the two, exept to note that 'acting out of fear' is not > insulting, whereas 'coward' is. I agree that Harry was rude, and also > believe he nailed the substance of the situation. a_svirn: So it is disgraceful, then, to place someone else's good above your own? To sacrifice your life for the cause you believe just, and to protect someone whom you believe the only hope for success of that cause? To place your loved one's safety before your own needs? Well, you may think it disgraceful, I don't. Obviously we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I might add though that I was surprised to no end that Harry had the gall to call someone who risked his life on a number of occasions to ensure Harry's safety a coward. As for the "substance of this situation", what exactly Harry did nail down? Setting aside the fact that it was none of his business, and the fact that we don't even know (and Harry most definitely didn't) whether Lupin consulted Tonks or not (though I inclined to agree that he didn't), what is so cowardly in abandoning her for her own good? It would be cowardly thing to do, if it Lupin was lying, and using it as an excuse to go for some lark with the Trio. But *that* was a monstrous lie. Not only Lupin's motives were perfectly valid, his offer was perfectly reasonable and not in the least daredevil. Whatever Lupin's weaknesses were this was the charge one couldn't level against him. > zgirnius: > If he was acting on behalf of the WW, why is it that all his > explanations of his actions were about Tonks and the baby? Even if > you are right, surely poor Harry could be forgiven for thinking that > 1) Lupin was acting for the reasons he stated, and 2) it was OK for > him to express opinions about matters Lupin insisted on bringing up > in conversation. a_svirn: Actually it was the other way round. Lupin came to Harry to offer him his help. Harry was the one who insisted to bring Tonks into the conversation. > zgirnius: > I'm sorry, but anyone who rants about their relationship to someone, > cannot complain when that someone decides to offer his or her > opinion. I agree these are deeply private and personal matters, but > the way to avoid the intrusion of others into them, is not to air > them in public. a_svirn: You seem to forget that it was Harry who brought up the topic. And flinging wild accusation at someone who is already at his wit's end, isn't the same thing as offering an opinion. > > a_svirn: > > I don' see it. Lupin said that Tonks would be OK. Which means that > he > > had thought it over and concluded that she wasn't in any immediate > > danger. And what sort of danger she would be while staying with her > > mother and under the Fidelius protection, anyway? > > zgirnius: > Let's see. Maybe she'd get all depressed and not be able to do magic, > because her new husband had left her without so much as a by your > leave? a_svirn: So it's OK for her to become depressed, but for Lupin to be distraught is disgraceful? > zgirnius: > Anyway - was Andromeda under Fidelius? I don't recall reading that, > and it makes little sense that Ted left if she was. I thought her > safety consisted of her undeniably pure, Black blood. a_svirn: We are told the she is safe. Since no one has ever contradicted it I think we can take it as a given. Whether it was fidelius or other charms doesn't really matter. From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Jan 13 21:18:42 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:18:42 -0000 Subject: Explain this passage In-Reply-To: <001801c85620$61393360$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180633 > Mike: > But as far as the whole blood thing; I don't think Voldemort really > cared that much, despite what Dumbledore said. I think the pure- > blood mania was for his followers consumption. He needed a hook to > recruit them and to keep them focused on their tasks, a reason d'etre > if you will, giving them something *they* believed in to pursue > Voldemort's goals. Give the DEs somebody to lord over and they won't > notice how much self determination they've lost to Voldemort. Another > Hitler parallel, with the DEs playing the part of the Gestapo. > > Angel: > snip Also I think Voldemort did seriously care about tainting the purebloods even though he was as far removed from a pureblood as possible barring Muggles. Having killed his own father and family, feeling responsible for the death of his mother, he was full of self- loathing (was he a psychopath or sociopath?) The "them" he blamed was himself, I guess in someway it was a form of self-purging? (here again though I won't bang my head against my desk as I write it this time, but just how daft are these people who followed a halfblood to restore purebloodism??? Honestly!) At the same time I do think you're right - purebloodism was a means to an end if we are to take Voldemort at his/Quirrell's word that there is only power. He only sought power.. snip. > > Susan: Lord Voldemort was obsessed with being a wizard, obsessed with his parentage, and totally focused on identifying himself with the powerful. Why else use tokens from the founders of Hogwarts for his horcruxes? L.V.'s first meeting with DD -- He asks about his father - did his father go to Hogwarts? His MOTHER couldn't have been a witch, he says, because if she had been, she wouldn't have died. He exulted in being a descendant of Salazar Slytherin, and speaking parseltongue. He parades the ring that belonged to SS (even though he murdered his wizard uncle to get it). Hogwarts meant everything to him. He was going to deck Hogwarts in the colors of his noble ancestor. (DH) By murdering his father and grandparents, I suggest that he was destroying the part of himself that wasn't wizard-like. Maybe he thought that by killing his father, he purged himself of dad's dirty blood, and that he got rid of the Muggle part of himself..who knows? He adores and worships the pure bloods. (Look at what he says to Neville just before Neville pulled the sword of out the hat). And I strongly suggest, that MOST of his followers did NOT know that he wasn't a pure blood. He tells Harry at the end of CoS, but that doesn't mean he told the DEs. He was the consummate power monger, trusting one DE for a while, then abandoning him or her if their usefulness ran out. He told some of them a little information, and others a little different information. And after all, there were computers, but was there an internet, or a world wide web? There might have been Google ..but I doubt that the HP Lexicon existed. Most of his followers had no way to get information about LV. Lord Voldemort kept the secret of the horcruxes, and how he was surviving from everyone. He operated alone. He made a fetish of secrecy. DD found out by work, research, etc., but he surely didn't tell anyone (until Harry). DD says (I'm working from memory here) that few people remembered that the clever brilliant good looking boy that had been Tom Riddle became Lord Voldemort. Who would know about his parentage? If they did know a little about it, they probably were not telling. We infer (from the scene in Slughorn's office where he and his buddies smirk knowingly when Slughorn says he comes of good wizard stock) that he told them about being a descendant of SS, but we have no clue what else he told them. The idea of pure blood supremacy was a justification but I think that LV also believed it and bought into it. His followers had to be given a philosophical justification for the "cause" AND a scapegoat. For Hitler it was to revenge the humiliation Germany "unjustly" suffered after WW I, and the scapegoat were the Jews. LV TELLS his followers that he wants revenge for the wrong done to witches and wizards by the Muggles. The scapegoat becomes the Muggle-borns. He tells his followers they "stole" magic so that everyone can be justified in throwing them out. Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Jan 13 20:44:37 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:44:37 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180634 > Susan McGee wrote: > > > (And a squib of course is a muggle. But a squib differs from some > muggles because a squib would have been born into family where one of > the parents was a witch or a wizard. We KNOW that a squib CAN have > > two magical parents, because Neville's family was afraid that he was > > a squib, and both his parents were magical. The non-squib muggles > > would be muggles who had two non-magical parents). > > Carol responds: > > Actually, that's not quite accurate. A Muggle is a a person with no > magical powers and no (known) magical ancestors. (Evidently, genes > from those unknown magical ancestors are sometimes activated in Muggle > offspring, producing Muggle-born witches and wizards, but as JKR's > attempts to explain this phenomenon are all off-page and her knowledge > of genetics is apparently limited, I won't go there.) Of course, genetics in the WW may not be the same as genetics in the RW, so if we project our RW genetics into the WW, there may be problems... Carol continues: > A Squib, OTOH, has, as you say, either one or two magical parents, and > is therefore *not* a Muggle. He or she is a Pure-Blood or Half-Blood > who somehow fails to develop magical powers. snip. Susan responds: Hmmmm....interesting..not sure I totally agree. I think that pure- blood or half-blood are political constructs, not genetic categories (see my prior post referencing JKR interview about this)...and there doesn't seem to be any correlation between intensity magical powers and being half-blood, pure blood, or muggleborn.so I wouldn't describe a squib as pure-blood or half blood...so would someone be considered a squib if one parent was a muggle, and the other parent was a witch or wizard? Or do both parents have to be magical for a non-magical person to be considered a Squib (I would guess that this is the case). Carol: (It appears that Squibs, unlike Muggles, can see Hogwarts and communicate with cats, but they can't see Dementors or cast spells. Susan responds: I understood that Mrs. Norris, and Mrs. Figgs' cats were part Kneazle...and we don't know (really) if Muggles can communicate with part cat/part Kneazle. So do we really know that the ability to communicate with part Kneazle/part cat is restricted to Squibs? Could Muggles also communicate with them? We know that Sirius communicated with Crookshanks in PoA, but I don't remember other humans communicating with him. I note in "Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them" that Kneazles can make an excellent pet if they take a liking to a witch or wizard. It sounds as if Kneazles may be like cats in that sometimes they fiercely bond to one human. We know that the part cat/part Kneazles bonded to Mrs. Figg, Mr. Filch and Sirius Black -- maybe they could also bond to a muggle? And there is evidence that Squibs can see dementors. Order of the Phoenix, hardback, U.S. edition, p. 143. '"A Squib, eh?' said Fudge, eyeing her closely........'Incidentally, can Squibs see dementors?' he added, looking left and right along the bench where he sat. 'Yes, we can!' said Mrs. Figg indignantly.'" THIS would serve to support the theory that there is a difference between Squibs and Muggles. Vis a vis seeing Hogwarts...sounds like you are assuming that because Mr. Filch lives inside Hogwarts that Squibs have an ability that Muggles do not...It could be that the protective spells are relaxed for him, and could be relaxed for Muggles. Have we ever noticed a Muggle at Hogwarts? We know that Muggles can get into Diagon Alley (Dr. and Dr. Granger) and can be admitted to St. Mungo's....We know that at least one Squib (Mrs. Figg) has been inside the Ministry of Magic...have there been Muggles there? Hmmm..interesting..... Susan From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 21:44:10 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:44:10 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180635 > Alla: > Harry was RUDE, no question about it. MY point was that he was rude > while speaking the truth. I mean, I thought that the debating topic > was whether he WAS indeed speaking the truth. a_svirn: Truth? So, in your opinion then Lupin *was* a daredevil? He *did* cruelly abandon his wife because he wanted to go for a lark with Harry and Co? He *did* in his old age conceive a craving to emulate Sirius? Do you really believe this? > Alla: > What I am trying to say is that even if he was saying it in a nice > words, a_svirn ( and you I guess, and other people) would have still > disagreed with substance of what he said? a_svirn: Yes, I would, because you can't say ugly lies in a nice way. a_svirn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 22:06:08 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:06:08 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180637 > > Alla: > > Harry was RUDE, no question about it. MY point was that he was rude > > while speaking the truth. I mean, I thought that the debating topic > > was whether he WAS indeed speaking the truth. > > a_svirn: > Truth? So, in your opinion then Lupin *was* a daredevil? He *did* > cruelly abandon his wife because he wanted to go for a lark with Harry > and Co? He *did* in his old age conceive a craving to emulate Sirius? > Do you really believe this? Alla: I thought I already said it upthread, but I guess I did not. No, I did not think that Lupin was a daredewil, so I guess that means that Harry was certainly "partially" speaking truth, but do I believe that he was acting as coward in abandoning Tonks and his child? Yes, if he loved them, oh my goodness yes. a_svirn: As for the "substance of this situation", what exactly Harry did nail down? Setting aside the fact that it was none of his business, and the fact that we don't even know (and Harry most definitely didn't) whether Lupin consulted Tonks or not (though I inclined to agree that he didn't), what is so cowardly in abandoning her for her own good? Alla: Okay, you keep saying that it was not Harry's business as if it is a fact. Do you mind me asking again whose business it was then? Which character was in the position to share those opinions with the reader more than Harry was? As plot developed I personally see none. I mean Tonks will be first logical one, but obviously plot did not give us many Remus/Tonks conversation. a_svirn: You seem to forget that it was Harry who brought up the topic. And flinging wild accusation at someone who is already at his wit's end, isn't the same thing as offering an opinion. Alla: No, **Harry** did not bring the topic first, but I will give you that Remus did not bring it first either. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 22:53:50 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:53:50 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180638 > Julie: > "It will be better off, a hundred times so, without a > father of whom it will be ashamed!" does not translate > to me as "I want to help you so that my child can grow > up safe and secure" a_svirn: No, of course it doesn't. But neither these two statements contradict each other. > Julie: but rather as "I want to run away > and hide from my potential pain, never mind if that will > cause even more pain for my child than staying." a_svirn: That's hardly an accurate translation either. The cruel truth is that in the current political climate his child would have really been better off without a werewolf father. Lupin was both a liability and a danger for his family. He was trying to rectify it, by removing himself out of the picture. Also he was trying simultaneously to do something useful for the cause of good. In both cases he thought of others' needs rather than of his own. > Julie: > Harry knows what the pain of abandonment feels like, > and I don't see why anyone would blame him for losing > his temper with Lupin. And yes, his accusations aren't > completely accurate, and he said things he really didn't > mean, but isn't that what losing your temper is all > about? It's not about rational discourse, just as words > spoken out of fear or desperation (Lupin) aren't either. a_svirn: Yes, there is that. But Harry's being rather more irrational than Lupin in this instance. > Julie: > I'd also point out that courage isn't just a physical > thing. Lupin isn't afraid to face Voldemort or to die. > He IS afraid to take a chance on loving someone, be it > his wife, his child, or the son of an old friend. He'd > rather avoid any intimacy, as he so often did with Harry, > taking any choice away from that other person involved, > all to protect himself and avoid emotional pain. That is > giving in to fear, and that is cowardly, IMO. a_svirn: Cowardly? I'd say jaded. He certainly had every reason to be. And I really don't see what you mean when you say that he avoided intimacy with Harry. It's not like Harry had ever been interested in having close relationship with him. And then when Lupin came to offer his friendship Harry spurned him and called him names. > Alla: > > I thought I already said it upthread, but I guess I did not. No, I > did not think that Lupin was a daredewil, so I guess that means that > Harry was certainly "partially" speaking truth, a_svirn: Ok so you are of the glass-half-full school of thought. As for me, I don't like the fact that Harry was "partially" lying. And that those lies were particularly hurtful and monstrously unjust. > Alla: but do I believe > that he was acting as coward in abandoning Tonks and his child? Yes, > if he loved them, oh my goodness yes. a_svirn: Why? He loved them, he wanted them safe, and he really thought that they would be safer and better without him. Even if he was wrong on that score (and I am by no means sure that he was) he was sincere in his attempt to rectify what he saw as a horrible mistake. > Alla: > > Okay, you keep saying that it was not Harry's business as if it is a > fact. a_svirn: Isn't it, though? > Alla: >Do you mind me asking again whose business it was then? a_svirn: Tonks's and Lupin's of course. > Alla: Which > character was in the position to share those opinions with the > reader more than Harry was? a_svirn: Why should it concern me? I am not the one who writes the story. I am one who criticises (which is admittedly much easier). From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 23:15:35 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:15:35 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180639 > > Alla: > > > > Okay, you keep saying that it was not Harry's business as if it is > a > > fact. > > a_svirn: > Isn't it, though? Alla: Yes, it is not his business had he never got a reason to have opinion on the subject, I think I am bowing out of this part of the debate at least. It is your opinion that it was not Harry's business and in the ordinary course of business I would totally agree with you - it is NOT Harry's business to come to Lupin's house for example and lecture him on his relationship. It is however decidedly NOT what happened here, in fact I see what happened here as pretty much the opposite - Lupin coming to Harry's house. Yes, he did not start the subject, but neither did Harry and since Remus was awfully quick to offer LOTS of information, I see no reason whatsoever why Harry should have kept quiet if he felt as he felt. > > Alla: > >Do you mind me asking again whose business it was then? > > a_svirn: > Tonks's and Lupin's of course. Alla: My friend is about to make what I consider the most idiotic decision ever and it concerns her very private and very personal relationship with her husband. I would never start the conversation about it with her, but if she starts such conversation, OR the third party in our conversation does, I am not going to be quiet. I think my friend is making horrible mistake, I love her like a sister, you think I should just bite my tongue? Yeah, nobody asked Hermione to inquire into Remus?Tonks business, but you know what? Remus did not tell her to mind her own business either. > > Alla: > Which > > character was in the position to share those opinions with the > > reader more than Harry was? > > a_svirn: > Why should it concern me? I am not the one who writes the story. I am > one who criticises (which is admittedly much easier). Alla: Eh. Okay. I was offering plot related reason for Harry to say what he did. Basically you are saying that plot related reasons are not good enough for you? I mean I understand, but sometimes I think we could make allowances for that. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 23:30:50 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:30:50 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180640 > Alla: > > Yes, it is not his business had he never got a reason to have > opinion on the subject, I think I am bowing out of this part of the > debate at least. It is your opinion that it was not Harry's business > and in the ordinary course of business I would totally agree with > you - it is NOT Harry's business to come to Lupin's house for > example and lecture him on his relationship. It is however decidedly > NOT what happened here, in fact I see what happened here as pretty > much the opposite - Lupin coming to Harry's house. Yes, he did not > start the subject, but neither did Harry and since Remus was awfully > quick to offer LOTS of information, I see no reason whatsoever why > Harry should have kept quiet if he felt as he felt. a_svirn: Because it was unjust? Hurtful? And Harry knew himself at fault when he cooled off? > > Alla: > > My friend is about to make what I consider the most idiotic decision > ever and it concerns her very private and very personal relationship > with her husband. I would never start the conversation about it with > her, but if she starts such conversation, OR the third party in our > conversation does, I am not going to be quiet. I think my friend is > making horrible mistake, I love her like a sister, you think I > should just bite my tongue? a_svirn: Would open your mouth to fling "partial truths" (which are, incidentally, more than a little partial lies) at her? > Alla: > Yeah, nobody asked Hermione to inquire into Remus?Tonks business, > but you know what? Remus did not tell her to mind her own business > either. a_svirn: He would have done better if he did. But he was obviously and understandably distraught. An excuse that Harry did not have. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 23:31:49 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:31:49 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180641 Susan McGee wrote: > > > > > (And a squib of course is a muggle. But a squib differs from some muggles because a squib would have been born into family where one of the parents was a witch or a wizard. We KNOW that a squib CAN have two magical parents, because Neville's family was afraid that he was a squib, and both his parents were magical. The non-squib muggles would be muggles who had two non-magical parents). > > Carol earlier: > > > > Actually, that's not quite accurate. A Muggle is a a person with no magical powers and no (known) magical ancestors. Carol again: I forgot to state that Neville's "they thought I was all-Muggle" remark appears in SS/PS, before JKR has introduced the concepts of Squibs or Half-Bloods. Even Draco only refers to "the other sort," implying a distinction between kids like himself who grew up in the WW with a witch and a wizard as parents and Muggle-borns, a term that has not yet been used. He seems satisfied with Harry's answer regarding his parents ("They were a witch and a wizard, if that's what you mean") and doesn't press the matter further except to ask Harry's surname (which, of course, he doesn't find out until later). My point is that, at the time Neville uses the term "Muggle" rather than "Squib" to refer to his own supposed lack of magical powers, JKR either hadn't invented the term yet or didn't have Neville use it at that point because she didn't want to bring in the anti-Muggle-born prejudice until CoS, where it's important because the Basilisk is targeting Muggle-borns. At no other time that I can recall is the term "Muggle" used to refer to a Squib, and the term "Squib" is never applied to Muggles at all. (Voldemort twice refers to the Muggle-born Lily as "your Muggle mother," but that's merely a reflection of his prejudice and is not, of course, a reference to a Squib.) Carol earlier: > > A Squib, OTOH, has, as you say, either one or two magical parents, and> is therefore *not* a Muggle. He or she is a Pure-Blood or Half-Blood who somehow fails to develop magical powers. snip. > > Susan responds: > Hmmmm....interesting..not sure I totally agree. I think that pure- blood or half-blood are political constructs, not genetic categories (see my prior post referencing JKR interview about this)...and there > doesn't seem to be any correlation between intensity magical powers > and being half-blood, pure blood, or muggleborn.so I wouldn't > describe a squib as pure-blood or half blood...so would someone be > considered a squib if one parent was a muggle, and the other parent > was a witch or wizard? Or do both parents have to be magical for a > non-magical person to be considered a Squib (I would guess that this > is the case). Carol again: I should have said that a child born to either one or two magical parents is normally a Witch or a Wizard, with whatever blood status the WW normally assigns to such a person (Pure-Blood, Half-Blood, or Muggle-born; we don't see any other possibilities). If, however, that child is born without magical powers, he or she in essence forfeits whatever blood status he or she would have had and is merely a Squib. Pure-blood parents or not, a Squib born into the Black family is burned off the family tapestry. (I speculate that other Pure-Bloods would eliminate the Squib from their list of eligible marriage partners since the absence of magical powers would outweigh his or her pure-blood ancestry. I also speculate that Mrs. Figg, who blended so easily into Muggle society, at one point married a Muggle. Her children, if any, would probably be considered Muggles--not that the WW cared enough to keep tabs on her or them.) I agree that there's no correlation between blood and magical power (despite the pure-blood supremacy ideology), but that's not what I was talking about. I just meant that a Squib forfeits the claim to having any Wizarding blood at all in the eyes of those who care about such things, whereas if he'd been born to the same set of parents but with magical powers, he'd be labeled according to his blood status (as Harry, Neville, Ron, Hermione, Draco, Severus, James, Sirius, Regulus, Lily, and many others are, not to mention "half-breeds" like the half-Wizard, half-Giant Hagrid). As for Pure-Blood and Half-Blood being political categories, I think that's only partly true. Since (Slughorn aside) Wizards in general speak of "blood" rather than genes or chromosomes, they're looking at bloodlines, at ancestry as illustrated in the Black family tapestry and books of Wizarding genealogy (or the absence of such family trees, in the case of people like Hermione, "a girl of no wizard family," as Lucius labels her. To me, it's very similar to European monarchs choosing brides for themselves and their sons (and, often, husbands for their daughters) based on the prospective brides' (or grooms') ancestry. It's politically motivated, but it also involves actual ancestry (cf. "noble blood," "princes of the blood," and similar expressions). That such bloodlines are used to determine suitable marriage partners or as a criterion for admission into Slytherin (Half-Bloods can claim a "wizard family," so they're allowed) and as a propaganda tool for recruiting DEs does not make claims such as Ernie's "nine generations of warlocks" any less true. As for classing someone like Harry, whose mother is a Muggle-born witch married to a pure-blood wizard as a Half-blood, if we look only at the blood status of the grandparents and not at genes and chromosomes and mutations, there's no difference between Harry (whose Potter grandparents are pur-bloods and whose Evans grandparents are Muggles) and Tom Riddle (whose Gaunt grandparents are pure-bloods and whose Riddle grandparents are Muggles). Certainly, Voldemort himself makes no distinction, comparing Harry's "Muggle mother" to his own Muggle father and Harry's status as Half-Blood to his own. > Carol: > (It appears that Squibs, unlike Muggles, can see Hogwarts and > communicate with cats, but they can't see Dementors or cast spells. > > Susan responds: > I understood that Mrs. Norris, and Mrs. Figgs' cats were part Kneazle...and we don't know (really) if Muggles can communicate with part cat/part Kneazle. So do we really know that the ability to communicate with part Kneazle/part cat is restricted to Squibs? Could Muggles also communicate with them? We know that the part cat/part Kneazles bonded to Mrs. Figg, Mr. Filch and Sirius Black -- maybe they could also bond to a muggle? Carol responds: Unfortunately, our only information about Mrs. Figg's cats being part-Kneazle comes from interviews. Canon says nothing about it. FB isn't much help, saying only that Kneazles make good pets for witches or wizards but are sufficiently distinctive to attract Muggle interest, which, I suppose, means they have to be hidden from Muggle eyes or they'll violate the Statute of Secrecy. (If that's true, then Mrs. Figg's supposedly half-Kneazle cats must look enough like regular cats not to attract notice.) IIRC, JKR never says that Mrs. Norris is anything other than a highly intelligent (and unpleasant) cat. Interestingly, Hermione, an intelligent and highly talented witch, doesn't seem to have the same affinity with the half-Kneazle Crookshanks (who can detect Animagi posing as animals) that Mrs. Figg and Filch have with their respective cats. As for Sirius Black, he was an Animagus and apparently communicated with Crookshanks while he was in dog form in much the same way that Peter Pettigrew communicated with other rats ("his filthy little friends" who told him where the spirit that possessed and destroyed small animals was hiding). there's no evidence in the books or even in interviews of similar bonds between cats and Muggles (however much some Muggles, say Aunt Marge, may dote on their pets). Susan: > And there is evidence that Squibs can see dementors. Order of the Phoenix, hardback, U.S. edition, p. 143. > '"A Squib, eh?' said Fudge, eyeing her closely........'Incidentally, can Squibs see dementors?' he added, looking left and right along the bench where he sat. 'Yes, we can!' said Mrs. Figg indignantly.'" > THIS would serve to support the theory that there is a difference between Squibs and Muggles. Carol: Yes. I actually agree with you. The problem is, Mrs. Figg's testimony conflicts with her creator's. JKR says on her website in the passage on SQUIBS in the room with the bulletin board (I've forgotten what the section is called) that Squibs can't see Dementors and Mrs. Figg was lying (encouraged by Dumbledore to commit perjury). Shall we believe Mrs. Figg, then, rather than JKR's outside-the-books explanation? > > Vis a vis seeing Hogwarts...sounds like you are assuming that because Mr. Filch lives inside Hogwarts that Squibs have an ability that Muggles do not...It could be that the protective spells are relaxed for him, and could be relaxed for Muggles. Have we ever noticed a Muggle at Hogwarts? We know that Muggles can get into Diagon Alley (Dr. and Dr. Granger) and can be admitted to St. Mungo's....We know that at least one Squib (Mrs. Figg) has been inside the Ministry of Magic...have there been Muggles there? > > Hmmm..interesting..... Carol: Yes, you're right. I'm assuming that not only can Filch see Hogwarts when he's inside the building, as he obviously can, but also that he can see the castle to get back into it when he's on the Hogwarts grounds, such as during the detention of Harry, Hermione, Draco, and Neville in SS/PS. He's also able to discover four of the seven secret passages, which are magically hidden, quite a feat for a failed wizard. So, it's clear to me that the spells that hide Hogwarts from Muggle view don't work on him. (If similar spells hide Hogsmeade, an all-wizarding village, they probably don't work on him, either.) I'm not aware of any occasions when a Muggle visited Hogwarts. Hermione's parents never visited her there when she was Petrified (were they even informed?) nor did Colin Creevey's or Justin Finch-Fletchley's, so far as we know. I don't know how the Grangers got into Diagon Alley (maybe Hermione knew which brick to touch with her wand?) or how the Evans family, including Petunia, got onto Platform 9 3/4 in "the Prince's Tale" (Flint, anyone?). The only Muggles I know of in the MoM are the ones carved on the throne that the witch and wizard in the new statue sit on. Both the Ministry (which is underground) and St. Mungo's (entered through the window with the ugly dummy) are hidden from Muggle eyes. (I think it would be hard to get a Muggle through that window; a witch or wizard would have to use side-along Apparation followed by a Memory Charm to get them there. Carol, wishing we'd seen Mrs. Figg in DH but glad that she (Figgy) didn't have to fight any DEs From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 23:46:45 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:46:45 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180642 > a_svirn: > Because it was unjust? Hurtful? And Harry knew himself at fault when > he cooled off? Alla: Well, that's the whole point you see. It was hurtful? Sure it was, but whether it was unjust, we disagree upon it. Harry knew himself at fault for calling Lupin a name, but he still says I should not call him a coward, but he was acting like one. Would you feel any better about what Harry said had he said that Remus was "acting like a coward" instead of was being a coward? Isn't it all semantics? It is not like Harry thinks that Remus was being courageous here and calls him a coward. > a_svirn: > Would open your mouth to fling "partial truths" (which are, > incidentally, more than a little partial lies) at her? Alla: Actually, what I will say or have said already is an absolute truth from my POV. My friend was not mad at me, but she certainly disagrees that what I said is a complete truth. So, absolutely from my friend's POV it is a partial truth, if any. > > Alla: > > Yeah, nobody asked Hermione to inquire into Remus?Tonks business, > > but you know what? Remus did not tell her to mind her own business > > either. > > a_svirn: > He would have done better if he did. But he was obviously and > understandably distraught. An excuse that Harry did not have. Alla: Harry did not have that excuse? I thought you said that he cooled off? Isn't it the sign that he was distraught at the very least? But I do not think that Harry has much to excuse himself for, whether he was distraught or not. For being rude, he does, but I remain convinced that Remus needed very badly to hear what Harry had to say as future events showed. Oh, and I also want to address Harry not wanting to have a relationship with Remus. You think Harry would not have wanted to have a relationship with close friend of his parents when he was younger? You think Harry would not have wanted that friend to visit him at Dursleys or at least to write him a letter? Yeah, as Sherry did I stopped wanting Remus to get closer to Harry books ago, but I definitely hold it against him that he did not do so in Harry's early years. JMO, Alla From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 13 23:53:24 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:53:24 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180643 Mike: I promised myself I would return to Michele's excellent question in her Ch 10 discussion, and I think this Lupin discussion dove-tails nicely into that. But I'll get to that in a bit. Were Dumbledore and the Order right in trying to shield Harry, in specific, and all their underage children, in general, from the wizarding "real world" of fighting against Voldemort? (Michele originally asked to contrast this with the LVs apparant non-restrictive age policy, but I'm leaving the DEs out of this post) There is a lot of lamentation in the RL of children growing up too soon, or being forced to by the world around them. Much of this, imo, started with the cold war threat of nuclear annihilation. What with the fallout shelters, the school safety drills in the 50s, it was hard to keep the threat a secret from the children. Now comes our 14-17 year old witches and wizards, suddenly thrust into a world with the returned megalomaniac intent on British WW domination, at least. Well the Order's kids know this secret, even if the rest of the WW's kids don't or are in denial. The parallel is there. Now, obviously, nobody was asking the RL children to fight the cold war. But, as Ceridwen pointed out, that didn't stop the teenagers from protesting against the war or against "the bomb". However, protesting is much different than actually fighting, this is where the parallel ends. The RL children don't have the capacity to fight in the same way the wizarding children do. Yet, the Order and DD seemed adamant about not letting even the of age Fred and George join the Order's ranks as active participants. And note, this is not a case of the children going against their parents, they're trying to join their parents/guardians/adult mentors. Add into the equation, Harry being even further involved in the fight with his soul-piece link to Voldemort's mind, a factor that Dumbledore seemed well aware of and still tried to deny. (DD was denying Harry the knowledge of why the link existed, the meaning of what he was seeing, and the objectives of Order against which Voldemort was fighting.) Molly was four-square behind Dumbledore's position. To me, she seemed even more adamant than DD, an almost fanatical, unquestioning follower of Dumbledore's dictums. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180590 > Alla: > What business did Molly have telling Sirius not to inform Harry > about the prophecy? She felt she had a right because she was > protecting Harry, no? a_svirn: None, as a matter of fact. Which Sirius pointed out to her. Mike: Since it was deemed Order business and both Molly and Sirius were there as members of the Order, Molly was being a good soldier by insisting that Harry not be told about the existance of the prophesy. That was definitely Dumbledore's position, and they all seemed to know it. Sirius seemed to disagree, but he didn't fight it when Molly called a halt to the discussion. So Sirius wasn't that adamant about telling Harry, was he? This is different from keeping Hary completely in the dark, which Molly seemed to be in favor of and which she unilaterally wanted to give herself authority over Sirius to rule. This is what Sirius protested and to which both Arthur and Lupin backed Sirius up. It makes no sense that Dumbledore would have permitted Harry to relocate to 12 GP and then insist that he be told *nothing* of what's going on around him. Here, Molly was definitely overplaying her hand. Lupin, fell somewhere between Molly and Sirius. He wasn't in favor of the complete blackout that Molly seemed to favor, yet he sided enough with Dumbledore to not want Sirius to spill the beans on everything the Order was doing. Lupin believed that the Order should be fighting this fight, for now. In this wizarding world, the idea that children must be kept from the fight makes no sense to me. This is a terrorist fight, children aren't going to be excluded by the other side as either participants or targets. This was born out in HBP and DH. The value of the DA as a children's organization is confirmed by their performances in the MoM. Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but given the factor of magic in this world, to try to exclude teenagers capable of performing quite powerful magic strikes me as wrong headed. But to try to exclude the literal object of the enemy, the boy shown to be the most capable of his contemporaries, was downright ridiculous, imo. Dumbledore does a 180 from OotP to HBP. We saw him admit that keeping the prophesy (both it's existance and content) from Harry was a mistake. Now, Dumbledore goes from hiding things from Harry and his friends to revealing well kept secrets to Harry, and by extension Hermione and Ron, and telling them to keep the secrets from the rest of the Order and even their parents. As much as I disagree with the original position of keeping these young wizards in the dark, I find this new position of Dumbledore's to be dumfounding. "Harry is our best hope" is fine, but Harry is our only hope and the only one that can do everything that needs to be done is small-minded and insulting to the rest of the people he had recruited to the fight. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180581 > a_svirn: > Personally, I think it was the rest of the order who were > irresponsible, sitting on their butts and waiting for three > seventeen-year-olds to do the entire job. At least, Lupin > *tried* to do something. They could use help, and > he was an asset in the Defence from the Dark Arts. Mike: When did DD tell the Order that he was turning over the fight to Harry and company? More to the point, how did the Order interpret Dumbledore's orders to mean "Stay the hell out of it, let Harry, Ron, and Hermione go it alone"? The Order comes together to get Harry out of Privet Drive safely and then,... what? Does a radio show? That you have to have a secret code to receive? I don't know what the rest of the Order was doing, but it seemed to me that Lupin was the only one acting responsibly at this time. OK, maybe he was doing it for the wrong reasons. That seems to be shown true by his later demeanor towards Harry after Teddy was born. Still, how can Lupin's offer to help be looked upon as cowardice? Did he join the Order to watch from the sidelines, to sit at home and give his pregnant wife moral support? This is the second reincarnation of the Order. What was their purpose the first time, to cheerlead for Dumbledore? Because the second reincarnation sure seems to be for the purpose of cheerleading for Harry, based on all they do in the second fight. [Re: Lupin's offer to help in Ch 11 vs. Lupin fighting in Ch 31] > a_svirn: > How? How it is different? Were Harry, Ron and Hernione going on > some protracted World Tour? Was not their quest about defeating > Voldemort and making a better world? > > > > And I really don't understand the argument about "following HRH to > do what, he doesn't know". He has been doing exactly that all his > years in the Order. Every member of the order has been doing this > very thing, because that was Dumbledore's style of leadership. Mike: Furthermore, Lupin may not know the secret mission, which is a poor choice by DD in itself imo, but why should he be thinking that he can't help the kids? He is offering his help to the Trio while they are ensconced in 12 GP. From all indications, the Trio were planning to make 12 GP their HQ again. Lupin could come and go from there just as easily, or easier, than the Trio could. There's no reason he couldn't take the same precautions regarding his "furry little problem" with the kids at 12 GP, as he was employing with Tonks at her parents home. This is long before the **unplanned** camping trip from hell. As far as any of them know, they aren't going anywhere soon. They intended and tried to return to 12 GP after their Ministry raid to retreive the locket. So why would Lupin's lycanthropy be a factor *at this time*, nobody was intending on going camping? Taking the Tonks factor out, there is no difference between Lupin's offer to help in Ch 11 than there was to his helping in the Battle of Hogwarts. In fact, based on Tonks actions later on, it seems logical to assume that Tonks would have joined Remus in his offer to help, were she not pregnant *at this time*. > a_svirn: > Still I'd say Harry had no business to insult him. Except, > that it seemed to have worked for Lupin, so maybe he needed it. Mike: The only place where I have a slight disagreement with a_svirn is in Lupin's actual reason to offer help. After Lupin's long self-pity rant and his admission of running from the problem, it seems obvious that the *real* reason Lupin is there is not completely altruistic. Just as obviously, as readers we're meant to understand that Remus is running away from what he thinks was a bad choice, and that Harry did shock him out of his depressive funk. Not that Harry was *in* the right to do so, but JKR made him right to do so. Yeah, I understand Harry's thinking. No, I don't think Dumbledore's death made him the arbiter of "what's right" in his friends and/or compatriots lives. Mike From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 00:25:06 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:25:06 -0000 Subject: Occlumency lessons - Two Way Connection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180644 --- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > ... > > It may be that LV *never* felt Harry sharing his mind, any > more than he ever felt the destruction of his Horcruxes. It > may be that he learned of Harry sharing his mind only because > Kreachy told Narcissa and Narcissa told LV. > bboyminn: Excellent thought about Kreacher being the source of Voldemort's knowledge of the Scar Connection. At last something brilliant and new. I've always felt that Voldemort was sensing or receiving feelings from Harry, but to a much lesser degree and I also suspect Voldemort failed to realize what they were. For example, when Harry and the Weasleys are about ready to Portkey out of Dumbledore's office, when Harry and Dumbledore's eyes lock, Harry had the urge to attack Dumbledore. Now from Voldemort's perspective, he is sitting around having a late night cup of tea, his thoughts wander to Dumbledore, and as a vision of Dumbledore rises in his thoughts, he is infuriated by the meddling of fool and has the urge to kill him. Voldemort doesn't realize that it is Harry's momentary obsession with Dumbledore that is bringing these thoughts to his mind, nor does he realize the image in his mind of Dumbledore is being transmitted by Harry. He thinks this is just a wandering thought that has entered his mind. Still, he has a very real rage against Dumbledore which is transmitted back to Harry. Keep in mind that Harry has a bit of Voldemort in him, but Voldemort does not really have a similar bit of Harry in himself. Yes, he has Harry's blood, but that is quite different than a soul-bit. So, I predict that Harry's connection to Voldemort is much stronger than Voldemort's connection to Harry. To some extent the bit of himself in Harry does transmit both ways; as we see Voldemort can inject images into Harry's mind. But Voldemort in a sense it tranmitting those images to himself, to his soul-bit in Harry. Harry does not have a similar 'bit' in Voldemort, so the connection in that direction is there but limited. And that is the whole point I am making. I DO believe the connection is two way, but V->H is much stronger than H->V. A lot of talking for a small point. Steve/bboyminn in Harry. I don't think Voldemort is similarly receptive. Receptive to a degree, but not similarly receptive. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 01:07:13 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:07:13 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180645 Mike wrote: > > I don't know what the rest of the Order was doing, but it seemed to me that Lupin was the only one acting responsibly at this time. OK, maybe he was doing it for the wrong reasons. That seems to be shown true by his later demeanor towards Harry after Teddy was born. Still, how can Lupin's offer to help be looked upon as cowardice? Did he join the Order to watch from the sidelines, to sit at home and give his pregnant wife moral support? > Furthermore, Lupin may not know the secret mission, which is a poor choice by DD in itself imo, but why should he be thinking that he can't help the kids? He is offering his help to the Trio while they are ensconced in 12 GP. From all indications, the Trio were planning to make 12 GP their HQ again. Lupin could come and go from there just as easily, or easier, than the Trio could. Carol responds: Clearly, Lupin doesn't think they're going to remain in 12 GP. Harry mentions that he wants to go along on their "adventure" (surely, he's not referring to the "adventure" of listening to Mrs. Black's screams or living on moldy bread). Lupin knows full well that they've been entrusted by DD with a mission that will involve leaving 12 GP, which is why he's offered to "protect" them. He also asks what they're up to, which Harry has already refused to tell McGonagall, Scrimgeour, and Mrs. Weasley. Why should Lupin be any different? When has he ever confided in Harry? He kept some pretty important secrets from him in PoA. I've already explained how running from the wife he impregnated with a child who may turn out to be a werewolf like himself can be interpreted as cowardice. *If* he were offering his services with the safety of the WW in mind, it would be different. (They still wouldn't want him along because DD told them to work alone, but Harry would not have called him a daredevil (deliberately risking his life) and a coward (running from his responsibilities). But you said yourself, these are no RL teenagers. They've learned spells that most adult wizards don't know (Harry's strong Patronus, Hermione's protective charms). They can fight in the later Battle of Hogwarts as well as most of the adults. Why should they need an adult protector--unlike Lupin's helpless, as yet unborn child, who needs both a father and a mother as long as he can have them. (Harry knows too well what it's like to be an orphan. There's no need, yet, for Lupin to risk his life. But the pregnant wife that he's made an "outcast" (his own word) and who is prone to depression that causes her magic to weaken does need him. (See my Tonks/Merope comparison upthread.) And imagine what Teddy would grow up thinking of the werewolf father who abandoned him and his mother. Remember Tom Riddle and his hated Muggle father. Mike: There's no reason he > couldn't take the same precautions regarding his "furry little > problem" with the kids at 12 GP, as he was employing with Tonks at > her parents home. > This is long before the **unplanned** camping trip from hell. As far > as any of them know, they aren't going anywhere soon. They intended > and tried to return to 12 GP after their Ministry raid to retreive > the locket. So why would Lupin's lycanthropy be a factor *at this > time*, nobody was intending on going camping? Carol responds: Again, I've already said this, so please forgive me for repeating myself. There are two possible ways to protect HRH from Lupin's transformations: to lock him up (cf. the Shrieking Shack) or to make Wolfbane Potion. Obviously, Wolfbane Potion is preferable, but none of them, not even Hermione, knows how to make it. It's tricky and it has to be drunk hot. The problems of obtaining and preparing the ingredients (an unfair burden to place on Hermione, in any case) become much greater as they leave on their mission, on which Lupin will be unable to advise them thanks to Dumbledore. (Yeah, I agree. Bad move on DD's part, but Harry has sworn to tell no one.) As for locking him in an upstairs room to protect themselves while he transforms at 12 GP, don't you think that the DEs will report his howls to LV, who can only conclude that Harry is staying there, too? (And certainly, once they're on the camping trip, they'll have no place to lock him up.) Tonks, OTOH, would no doubt be both happy to prepare the potion for the husband she loves but capable of brewing it. I've already talked about the requirements to become an Auror, which include an O on your OWL, NEWT-level Potions (which she would have had with Snape), and three years of further training. Even if she doesn't already know how to prepare Wolfbane Potion, she has both the motivation and background to learn. And that she must have learned to do so is evident from the healthier, happier Lupin we glimpse when he names Harry his son's godfather. Imagine, BTW, how our gloom-and-doom Lupin, guilty, depressed, and kept out of the secret of the mission, knowing himself to be a danger to the very people he was trying to protect thanks to their inability to brew Wolfbane Potion or lock him up during his transformations, would have reacted to the presence of the Horcrux, which would have been impossible to hide from him in any case. Nor do I see how Snape could have delivered the Sword of Gryffindor with Lupin present. No, indeed. They were better off without him. And Lupin was better off with the wife who loved him and the child who needed him, if only for a little while. At least Teddy will know that his father fought to make a better world for him rather than abandoning him and his mother before Teddy was even born. And he was there to comfort Tonks and Andromeda when one lost her father and the other her husband. If matters had been otherwise--if Lupin had remained unmarried; if he could have brewed Wolfbane Potion himself ahead of time and could taken a supply of it along, a la Polyjuice Potion; if he were allowed to offer real help instead of being kept out of the secret, which could only increase his depression and lack of self-esteem--then maybe it would have been good to have him with them. Certainly, Harry would not have had the reasons he had for refusing Lupin, and while he might have had grounds for calling Lupin a daredevil, he would have had no reason to call him a coward. As matters stand, it's better for the Trio and for Lupin himself that he took Harry's advice and returned to his family, where he could do some real good and have a few months of the love and happiness that had been denied him for most of his life. Carol, hoping that someone will respond to her canon-based post upthread but pretty sure that no one in this thread is going to change anyone else's mind From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 03:56:47 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 03:56:47 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180646 > Carol responds: > > Clearly, Lupin doesn't think they're going to remain in 12 GP. > Harry mentions that he wants to go along on their "adventure" > (surely, he's not referring to the "adventure" of listening to > Mrs. Black's screams or living on moldy bread). Mike: The "adventure" to the MoM took less than a full day. Same for the Gringotts "adventure". But look how long they took to plan. Furthermore, in the Gringotts adventure, they not only included a Goblin in the planning, they took him along. Now how would things be so different (planning-wise, objective-wise, and with regards to keeping the Horcrux secret) if they had included Remus instead of Griphook? And Remus could have brought them fresh bread from the Tonks. He could also shut Ma Black up himself a couple of times. ;) > Carol: > Lupin knows full well that they've been entrusted by DD with a > mission that will involve leaving 12 GP, which is why he's offered > to "protect" them. Mike: Nothing I've read in the whole exchange leads me to believe that Lupin knew the Trio were going to be travelling extensively. In fact, not yet knowing that the locket was with Umbridge in the Ministry, why would the Trio think they were going to be travelling? I don't know what "protection" Lupin was envisioning, we never got that far. > Carol: > He also asks what they're up to, which Harry has already refused > to tell McGonagall, Scrimgeour, and Mrs. Weasley. Why should Lupin > be any different? When has he ever confided in Harry? He kept some > pretty important secrets from him in PoA. Mike: Yes he did, but he eventually spilled some of those important secrets. Although Lupin looked disappointed that Harry wouldn't confide the secret, Lupin admits he expected this. > Carol: > I've already explained how running from the wife he impregnated > with a child who may turn out to be a werewolf like himself can be > interpreted as cowardice. *If* he were offering his services with > the safety of the WW in mind, it would be different. -< cutting and pasting Carol's sig line to here>- > Carol, hoping that someone will respond to her canon-based post > upthread but pretty sure that no one in this thread is going to > change anyone else's mind Mike: I'll respond to both. I agree with your interpretation with regards to Lupin's motivations. In part of the post you snipped, I admit that Lupin's motives were less than altruistic. I think the whole poor, poor, pitiful me rant makes that abundantly clear. I'm trying, though maybe not successfully, to point out that an Order member trying to help Harry was a good thing (if only it weren't a Lupin trying to run away from his problems). That there was a conspicuous lack of help offered by the Order, Lupin being the only one after the 7 Harrys escape. I'm also agreeing with a_svirn that it wasn't Harry's place to impose his value system, "Parents shouldn't leave their kids ..."

, no matter whether he was right about Lupin or not. Harry won't confide his secrets, but he feels free to decide that Lupin's home life doesn't live up to his standards? I don't care that Harry was right, witnessed by Lupin's transformed reaction to fatherhood. I don't care that Harry shocked him into this, and that it was probably a good thing in the long run. I also don't care that Lupin was offering his help for all the wrong reasons. My gut reaction was to think, "It's about time someone said that to Remus." But my sense of fair play said, "How dare Harry call Lupin a coward for offering help? And how *dare* he impose his morality like some Godfather on a man that has risked his life numerous times in the fight against Voldemort and to save Harry?" You're right about another thing Carol, there doesn't look like a lot of mind changing going on here. :) > Carol: > They still wouldn't want him along because DD told them to work > alone, Mike: Whoa! Where did you read that? I remember Dumbledore telling Harry, "You need your friends." If Harry didn't count Lupin among his friends, so be it. Though Harry asked if he could divulge new information to Ron and Hermione during HBP, Dumbledore's sole admonition was about asking Ron and Hermione not to spread it around. I don't remember DD telling Harry they had to "work alone". Got some canon for me, or do you just mean by inference? > Carol: > (Harry knows too well what it's like to be an orphan. > There's no need, yet, for Lupin to risk his life. Mike: This part makes no sense to me. Since when is there a good time or a bad time to risk one's life? Good cause or bad cause, I'll buy. But Lupin isn't changing causes. And if you can use the fact that Harry's disapproval proved later in the book to be a good thing, can I use the fact that Lupin dies later in the book proves that it doesn't matter when he risks his life. In fact, maybe if he dies with Harry, Tonks has no reason to abandon Teddy during the Battle of Hogwarts, so she stays home and Teddy doesn't grow up an orphan. ------------------- LUPIN'S LYCANTHROPY > Carol responds: > > Again, I've already said this, so please forgive me for repeating > myself. There are two possible ways to protect HRH from Lupin's > transformations: to lock him up (cf. the Shrieking Shack) or to > make Wolfbane Potion. Mike: There is a third option. Lupin can do whatever those other werewolves that don't have access to wolfsbane do. Apparate to an island out in the Irish Sea, some vast uninhabited moor, a place like the Forbidden Forest; some place where he'll do no harm. There a supposed to be many more "of [his] kind" besides Greyback. What do you suppose they do during a full moon? What did Lupin himself do during the year of HBP when he was supposedly spying on the other werewolves for Dumbledore? Do you suppose he left them and didn't transform with them? Not a good way to make friends and influence werewolves, wouldn't you say? Carol: > As for locking him in an upstairs room to protect themselves while > he transforms at 12 GP, don't you think that the DEs will report > his howls to LV, who can only conclude that Harry is staying there, > too? (And certainly, once they're on the camping trip, they'll have > no place to lock him up.) Mike: Though Mother Blacks frequent rants wouldn't do the same thing? But what did it matter, the DEs were already camped outside of 12 GP before Lupin showed up. Why would a howling werewolf alert them to any more than they already suspected? And how would a howling wolf mean that Harry was in there? I'm not seeing the connection. To argue that Lupin's lycanthropy should be or was any factor in this decision to include Lupin seems without basis. Neither the Trio nor Lupin know where they're going on these "adventures" nor when. The Trio took many weeks planning their Ministry raid and still they planned to return to 12 GP. Lupin has survived for many years without the aid of the wolfsbane potion, what would make anyone believe he couldn't do it any more? It's only a day or so out of each month, and presumedly he's figured out how to deal with it without afflicting new victims. Why is this situation so different than what he's had to deal with for most of his life? Mike From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 14 04:00:03 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 04:00:03 -0000 Subject: Wizarding genetics Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180647 Susan McGee wrote in : << And a squib of course is a muggle. But a squib differs from some muggles because a squib would have been born into family where one of the parents was a witch or a wizard. >> Carol replied in : << Actually, that's not quite accurate. A Muggle is a a person with no magical powers and no (known) magical ancestors. (Evidently, genes from those unknown magical ancestors are sometimes activated in Muggle offspring, producing Muggle-born witches and wizards, but as JKR's attempts to explain this phenomenon are all off-page and her knowledge of genetics is apparently limited, I won't go there.) A Squib, OTOH, has, as you say, either one or two magical parents, and is therefore *not* a Muggle. He or she is a Pure-Blood or Half-Blood who somehow fails to develop magical powers. >> Susan McGee replied in : << I think that pure-blood or half-blood are political constructs, not genetic categories (see my prior post referencing JKR interview about this)...and there doesn't seem to be any correlation between intensity magical powers and being half-blood, pure blood, or muggleborn, so I wouldn't describe a squib as pure-blood or half blood...so would someone be considered a squib if one parent was a muggle, and the other parent was a witch or wizard? Or do both parents have to be magical for a non-magical person to be considered a Squib (I would guess that this is the case). >> Parts of this can work just fine with realiverse genetics. Let the do-magic gene be recessive (m). Then people who are homozygous dominant will be Muggles (MM) and people who are heterozygous will be Muggles (Mm). In many cases, recessive genes don't just go into stasis, so it's quite possible that heterozygous Muggles will be more psychic or more imaginative or smell slightly different than homozygous Muggles, something to make them more romantically attractive to wizarding folk than the homozygous Muggles are. Statistically, a large group of offspring who each come from two heterozygous parents will be half heterozygous, one quarter homozygous dominant, and one quarter homozygous recessive. The homozygous recessive show a trait that perhaps none of their ancestors have shown for a century or two. Randomness often makes small groups have different proportions than the large group, so just because the Creeveys (obviously both Mm) had two wizarding (mm) sons doesn't mean they necessarily had 6 Muggle children as well. Even in a large group, the numbers can be skewed if one phenotype is more likely to die off -- I recall crossing the white-eyed fruit flies with the heterozgous red-eyed fruit flies to get an F1 generation that was about one-third white-eyed, not the one-half asserted by the textbook. The teaching assistants said that was fine, it's just that white-eyed fruit flies don't survive very well. So it could possibly be that magic is a high-survival phenotype so Mm x Mm crosses will skew to more than one-quarter magic children. Then all wizards and witches are homozygous recessive (mm) so all children of a wizard and a witch will also be homozygous mm. Pureblood and Halfblood and Muggleborn are a statement of genealogy, not of genes (which agrees with both Susan and Carol). A Muggleborn or literal half-Muggle has no higher probability than a pureblood of having offspring who have the M gene. A Squib is a person who is homozygous for magic but nonetheless can't do magic. It's like a birth defect -- something that happens to the body that wasn't caused by genes. (I have a theory, below, about the cause of the birth defect.) I think that Squibs, at least Squibs with two wizarding parents, are very rare (Ron in CoS: "Kind of the opposite of Muggle-born wizards, but Squibs are quite unusual."). I think there might be one or two per generation. The child of one magical parent (mm) and one Muggle parent (Mm) could be magic (mm) or Muggle (Mm). If it were Mm, it would be a Muggle, not a Squib. If it were mm, it would normally be a witch or wizard, but if it had the birth defect that made it unable to do magic, it would be a Squib, but the wizarding community would *call* it a Muggle, because that's how they are. The child of Mm and Mm could also be a mm Squib, but would definitely be called a Muggle by wizarding folk. It seems that usually the child of an Mm and an mm is an mm. When the mother is mm, this can be explained by her body giving a disadvantage to the M sperm. I don't have a pseudo-scientific explanation why it would skew magic when the mother is the Muggle. There's probably a lot of other genes giving increments of magic power intensity at various kinds of magic, so one could statistically expect that the child of two parents with strong magic powers would have stronger magic power than the child of two parents with weak magic powers. But Muggles, even MM Muggles, could be carrying the genes for very strong magic power in many flavors and be just as non-magical because they're not mm. Part of my theory is not scientific at all -- it is that the magic takes an active role in its own perpetuation. When a wizard or witch dies, the magic sees to it that another magic person is born at that time -- I used to say that the dead person's magic finds a new person, but I don't know that it's quite so specific. The magic will settle into the closest most suitable newborn; having the mm gene pair is part of being suitable. Being close to magic (and it's hard to be much closer than inside a witch's womb) increases suitability. Perhaps those hypothetical other genes that give one's magic its strength are part of being suitable. That could account for the rate of very strong magic being higher among Muggle-borns than among other wizarding folk. I like this part because it makes the Voldemort Reign of Terror so counterproductive. During the years when many wizards and witches were being killed, their magic was going to newborns. Even if the wizarding folk didn't postpone having children while they were afraid for their lives, their normal rate of childbearing isn't enough to provide for all those deaths, so the Death Eater attempts to eliminate Muggleborns actively increased the number of Muggleborns. Listies used to suggest that the wizarding folk had a baby boom after the first defeat of LV. A wizarding baby boom without a simultaneous wizarding death boom will result in an unusually large number of Squibs, another result that the DEs didn't want. But it's only superstition that makes the wizarding folk think that Squibs are more likely than any other mm to have Squib children. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 05:36:49 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:36:49 -0000 Subject: Explain this passage In-Reply-To: <001801c85620$61393360$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180648 > Angel: > Thanks for the correction. PC was kind enough to correct me on the > quiet ;) Mike: Sorry Angel, I didn't mean to pick on you, I was trying to have a little fun with PC. :D > Angel: > Yet something propelled Voldemort to seek out Potter first. The way the Fidelius was whispered by the group in Rosmerta's bar in PoA spoke of a serious spell difficult to carry out and impenetrable. Dumbledore in this talk with Harry promised to out the secrets (well the ones relating to the prophesy anyhow) and I agree with him that Voldemort chose Harry to be his adversary. Even if Voldemort planned to off poor Nevvy also, he chose Harry first and thus Harry was the chosen one. Why he did so, is the dilemma methinks :) Mike: I quite agree, that was RL's original question. And PC pointed out that according to canon, Snape told DD that LV had decided the prophesy meant Lily. And, yes PC, canon does count, at least with me it does. My only addendum is that if LV had chose the Longbottom boy, would Snape had begged for a meeting with DD? If the answer is no, then do you think Snape would have bothered to include that the Longbottoms were also targeted in the few snippets of memory that we saw? That is, if Harry and Neville were targets 1 and 1a, do you think Snape would bother to mention 1a? What did Snape care about the Longbottoms, especially at that time? But you are both right, there is no story if someone isn't the "chosen one". Does that mean that Voldemort "chose" Harry, or does that mean that by acting on the prophesy (the self-fulfilling thingy) Voldemort "chose" to make someone his most powerful "marked" vanquisher, no matter which boy he went after first? Snape wouldn't care whether LV went after Lily first or second. Just including Lily in the hunt would trigger Snape's lamentation about being the delivery boy and cause him to go ballistic. > Angel: > I'm of two minds about this. Mike: Only two? I'm starting to morph into one of Snape's hydras. > Angel: At the same time I do think you're right - purebloodism was a means to an end if we are to take Voldemort at his/Quirrell's word that there is only power. He only sought power.. What exactly those powers he gained were that were beyond the scope of Dumbledore's conscience let alone the abilities of a baby, I still have to discover, marvel, gasp and quiver at!... okay will stop this now before I resort to banging head on desk again. Mike: Umm,... yeah, well,... what was that again? Oh yeah, pure-bloodism! I'm thinking here that is entirely possible that Voldemort deluded himself into believing that no pure-blood would ever be his downfall. Not when he was championing pure-bloodism because of that self- loathing thing you mentioned he had for half-bloods like himself. Is that what Dumbledore was saying, when he said Voldemort chose the half-blood like himself? > Angel: > I have the terrible propensity to hide my actual point in subtexts lol. I meant the prophecy itself was beyond ambiguous and I guess once again I vented at the wrong spot ;)...still I do think Voldemort chose Harry. I cannot remember the actual prophesy, but do recall, that the dark lord will himself mark... ra ra ra the little twit who will bring him down...so the prophesy did speak of the dark lord CHOOSING his own adversary and like Dumbledore I believed Voldemort chose Harry because he saw himself in Harry and knew what he was capable of, a half-blood! He saw himself in Harry because of the blood connection I suppose - Muggle blood. He chose that which he loathed and he loathed that which he feared or feared that which he loathed? Either way, that was Voldemort. Mike: OK, I'll buy that. You've won me over. Please don't do that head-desk thing. ;) > Angel: > But Dumbledore here said he would speak to Harry as an adult and reveal all that he had blanketed him from in the past years. Which again brings my head very close to my desk in force :) and to another track. Using people was okay as long as it was Dumbledore doing the using, according to Dumbledore. He used Harry, yet recoiled at the idea of McScrooge using Harry to buffer the wizarding community. So Dumbledore fed Harry with "you're special ideas" but refused to allow others to share in the same notion? Yes Dumbledore makes sense to me but not very good sense Mike: We gotta get you away from your desk, Angel. Do you have one of those portable keyboards you can set up on a pillow? :D > Angel: > > Oooh! You didn't know? (beg...the kind Voldemort the twat is incapable of beaming lol) Well what are the chances that Lily's closeted wannabe lover brings Volders the prophecy? An incomplete prophecy to be exact! :) Voldemort is of course spurred to hunt for Harry's head all because Severus asked to spare Lily? What if it was Severus who translated the prophecy and passed Voldemort his interpretation? Voldemort did ask him to explain the flounders of the almighty useless wand, so Voldemort held a certain respect if not dependency on Severus' brilliance. > don't have time to draft this out especially as am at work, but here are a few points: > It was Snape who gave Harry reason to seek out the philosopher's stone. > Snape who provided the answer to the secret in the chamber (Draco and Harry's duel) > Snape who caused Peter to escape from the shack and thus cause the Harry/Hermione timetravelling and all it contained > Snape the Death Eater???? Whoo! > Snape who weakened Harry's mind (not intentionally but by the nature of occlumency itself!) that led everyone to the MoM including Volders > HBP all about Snape!!! Yeeeee! > Then in Deathly Hallows ... well I won't go there :) Mike: OK, I get it. Can I add some more? -Snape whispered into Napolean's ear "Take Russia, what's the worst that can happen?" -Snape told John Wilkes Booth which door to use. -Snape hit the lead Navy pilot in the Bermuda Triangle formation with a confundus -Snape was the guy on the Grassy Knoll That about covers it, dontcha think? ;O) From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Mon Jan 14 05:55:40 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:55:40 -0000 Subject: Explain this passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180649 > Mike: > > OK, I get it. Can I add some more? -Snape whispered into Napolean's ear "Take Russia, what's the worst that can happen?" -Snape told John Wilkes Booth which door to use. -Snape hit the lead Navy pilot in the Bermuda Triangle formation with a confundus -Snape was the guy on the Grassy Knoll That about covers it, dontcha think? ;O) Tiffany: That sounds a lot like Snape & sometimes I think he lost his brain in the Bermuda Triangle also. I don't hate Snape, I actually have some respect for what he's capable of, but at times he doesn't seem to have all his ducks in row. I liked some of his ideas & decisions in the books, but his truly grand moments of genius are few & far between, if you ask me. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 11:00:48 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:00:48 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180650 > Mike: > I don't know what the rest of the Order was doing, but it seemed to > me that Lupin was the only one acting responsibly at this time. OK, > maybe he was doing it for the wrong reasons. a_svirn: On the contrary, he was offering his help for all the right reasons. You've listed them yourself in your excellent post. You may argue that he abandoned his family for all the wrong reasons, but that's another and *separate* issue. > Mike: > The only place where I have a slight disagreement with a_svirn is in > Lupin's actual reason to offer help. After Lupin's long self-pity > rant and his admission of running from the problem, it seems obvious > that the *real* reason Lupin is there is not completely altruistic. a_svirn: I have these two problems with apostrophising Lupin's outpouring as a "self-pity rant". First it's too dismissive. It's like saying Lupin' exaggerated the graveness of his situation in order to win a pity vote from the Trio. Which is simply not true. Everything he said was perfectly accurate. Under the circumstances he *was* a liability and a danger for his family. His child *did* face a lifetime's worth of shame and scorn from the rest of wizading community, even if he wouldn't turn out a werewolf. Even before Voldemort's coup Tonks and Lupin couldn't stay at Harry's birthday party because Scrimgeour was coming and the Ministry was too anti-werewolf. How much worse the situation became after the coup? Furthermore, Lupin had no way of knowing that Harry would sort out Voldemort in a few months, if at all. And under Voldemort's regime what chance had an official half- werewolf to start Hogwarts, for instance? Or in fact, to survive? All in all, being an official bastard may well have been preferable to being an official "quarter-bred". Which brings me to the second problem. When all the listers who despise Lupin for this moment of weakness say that he was whining and wallowing in *self*-pity, they seem to overlook the fact that the whole thing wasn't about *him*. He had long since accepted his life as an outcast and did not complain. Well, out loud, at least. It was only when he faced the possibility that he condemned his own child to the same miserly existence he cracked. And, frankly, anyone would, at least for a while. In any case, whether he was right or wrong in abandoning his family, his primarily concern was his child's welfare, and not his own. Which hardly counts as selfish, now, does it? It was a loose-loose situation: abandon the family and cause Tonks pain and condemn the child to a fatherless life, or stay and strip them both from the only chance to conform to the new regime. You think Lupin made the wrong choice? Perhaps. Rowling is certainly of that opinion. But it was by no means an easy choice, and there wasn't a ready-made answer to it, like "parents should stay with their children". > Mike: > I don't care that Harry was right, witnessed by Lupin's transformed > reaction to fatherhood. I don't care that Harry shocked him into > this, and that it was probably a good thing in the long run. I also > don't care that Lupin was offering his help for all the wrong > reasons. My gut reaction was to think, "It's about time someone said > that to Remus." But my sense of fair play said, "How dare Harry call > Lupin a coward for offering help? And how *dare* he impose his > morality like some Godfather on a man that has risked his life > numerous times in the fight against Voldemort and to save Harry?" a_svirn: Hear, hear! a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 11:32:18 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:32:18 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180651 > Alla: > > Well, that's the whole point you see. It was hurtful? Sure it was, > but whether it was unjust, we disagree upon it. Harry knew himself > at fault for calling Lupin a name, but he still says I should not > call him a coward, but he was acting like one. > > Would you feel any better about what Harry said had he said that > Remus was "acting like a coward" instead of was being a coward? a_svirn: I wouldn't. Because the only instance in which Lupin's behavior can be construed as cowardly, is that he probably ? and neither we, nor Harry know this for sure ? did not discuss his decision with Tonks. It seems to me (but it is only conjecture on my part), that he presented Tonks with fait accompli. If he did he *was* acting cowardly towards her. But that's not what Harry accused him of. And things he did accuse him of ? being a daredevil, trying to step in Sirius shoes, and even being a coward for running from his family are as far from the truth as it possibly can. > > > a_svirn: > > Would open your mouth to fling "partial truths" (which are, > > incidentally, more than a little partial lies) at her? > > Alla: > > Actually, what I will say or have said already is an absolute truth > from my POV. My friend was not mad at me, but she certainly > disagrees that what I said is a complete truth. a_svirn: But I think we are in the agreement, though, that Harry did not say the "absolute" truth from his POV. I mean he didn't really believe in this drivel of seeking personal glory and stuff, did he? So he disgorged the whole pile of untruths ? which were untruths even from his POV ? and which by far outweigh the "one halfpennyworth of bread to this intolerable deal of sack". > > a_svirn: > > He would have done better if he did. But he was obviously and > > understandably distraught. An excuse that Harry did not have. > > > Alla: > > Harry did not have that excuse? I thought you said that he cooled > off? Isn't it the sign that he was distraught at the very least? a_svirn: No, it is the sign that he was angered. And it never stops to puzzle me why Harry is allowed to wallow in self-pity for being an orphan, but for Lupin to have a moment of weakness is disgraceful. > Alla: > Oh, and I also want to address Harry not wanting to have a > relationship with Remus. You think Harry would not have wanted to > have a relationship with close friend of his parents when he was > younger? You think Harry would not have wanted that friend to visit > him at Dursleys or at least to write him a letter? a_svirn: I don't know. I don't remember Harry being particularly interested in Lupin after POA. In GoF he spared him one fleeing thought ? compared Fake!Moody's teaching techniques to those of Lupin. But other than that he was absolutely focused on his relationships first with Sirius and then with Dumbledore. It didn't look that there was a place for Lupin in his affections. Besides in a scene we are discussing Lupin did offer his friendship along with his help ? now that Harry was an adult and they could deal as equals. Harry didn't react kindly to that, though. a_svirn From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 14 12:40:30 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:40:30 -0000 Subject: Explain this passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180652 > Tiffany: > > That sounds a lot like Snape & sometimes I think he lost his brain in > the Bermuda Triangle also. I don't hate Snape, I actually have some > respect for what he's capable of, but at times he doesn't seem to have > all his ducks in row. I liked some of his ideas & decisions in the > books, but his truly grand moments of genius are few & far between, if > you ask me. Potioncat: He may have told Boothe which door to use, but I'll bet he's the real reason Boothe's leg broke. Also, as for "few and far between" compare him to the HP-adults and he starts to look much better. Who else has shown any grand moments at all? Potioncat: who can't remember if it's Booth or Boothe and snipped the portion of the post that contained the name. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 16:45:16 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:45:16 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180653 > a_svirn: > I don't know. I don't remember Harry being particularly interested in > Lupin after POA. In GoF he spared him one fleeing thought ? compared > Fake!Moody's teaching techniques to those of Lupin. But other than > that he was absolutely focused on his relationships first with Sirius > and then with Dumbledore. It didn't look that there was a place for > Lupin in his affections. Besides in a scene we are discussing Lupin > did offer his friendship along with his help ? now that Harry was an > adult and they could deal as equals. Harry didn't react kindly to > that, though. Alla: Oh, but I agree with you that Harry is not shown as being interested in Lupin's in PoA. I think he respected him, yes, but I doubt that he wanted him as father figure by the time Sirius was in the picture. That is not what I was talking about though. I was talking about Lupin not checking on Harry in his early years. And I think that Harry would have hold on to tiny drop of affection from ANYBODY while he was at Dursleys and yes, I believe that they could develop a relationship from there if Lupin was a tiny bit interested. Yes, yes I know nobody was checking on Harry and maybe Dumbledore did expressly forbid anybody to interfere. MAYBE. Since Remus did not mention once that he was forbidden from interfering, I am feeling free to speculate that he simply was not interested in doing so. And putting aside all other issues in that scene that I am not interested in repeating my views anymore, his offer of friendship on its own was as far as I am concerned way too late. JMO, Alla. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 16:59:49 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:59:49 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180654 > Alla: > > And putting aside all other issues in that scene that I am not > interested in repeating my views anymore, his offer of friendship on > its own was as far as I am concerned way too late. Alla: Okay, Alla slaps her fingers. I did not mean to say that by itself the offer of friendship is something bad, but to me it IS too late and much easier to offer friendship to adult Harry and do nothing when Harry needed a helpful adult when he was a kid. a_svirn: No, it is the sign that he was angered. And it never stops to puzzle me why Harry is allowed to wallow in self-pity for being an orphan, but for Lupin to have a moment of weakness is disgraceful. Alla: Slaps her fingers even more. I allowed Remus to wallow in self pity for six books, I mean for three books. It is a cumilative effect you see, there is a moment when it started being too much for me. I guess Harry did not reach that moment for me - he whined, but I was not fed up by his whining. Probably because whining was not the only thing he did and if he did not like something, he at least sometimes tried to correct it for the better. Yes, I know Remus did heroic things, but not once I saw him trying to CHANGE what he whined about. He loses his job and he is mad at Snape? Go confront him, PLEASE, tell the bastard to his face what you think about him ( Please, I am not going to argue about whether it was Remus fault or not, I am only talking about Remus' feelings about Snape and mine too). You are not happy that Dumbledore sent you of all people to werewolfes? Tell another bastard that you. are.not.going, that there are other tasks you can be doing. Molly pressures you into making up with Tonks, tell her what you think man. See, a_svirn, it is a cumulative effect. I felt pity for him over and over, by the time he came to offer his help to Harry, boy was I fed up. If it was the first time he did it, I may have reacted very differently. Alla From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Jan 14 17:25:24 2008 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:25:24 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40801140925o72aa1e2dt4f1ee7a58b530082@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180655 > Alla: > Yes, yes I know nobody was checking on Harry and maybe Dumbledore did > expressly forbid anybody to interfere. MAYBE. Since Remus did not > mention once that he was forbidden from interfering, I am feeling free > to speculate that he simply was not interested in doing so. Kemper now: Dumbledore didn't want Mrs. Figg to say anything to Harry so that the Dursley's would still send them to her. (Or was that Mrs. Figg intuiting that?) It would make sense that Dumbledore forbid contact in case Order members inadvertently led fundamentalist DEs to him. (See Bellatrix and Barty Jr) Also, since Dumbledore is apparently Machiavellian perhaps he didn't wish to test Dursley's good nature with crazy dressing witches and wizards bopping or popping by. Ever planning, that Dumbledore. Kemper From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 18:45:33 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:45:33 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180656 > >>Pippin: > I don't get it. Somehow Voldemort isn't getting credit for finding > a way to take over the WW without a fight. > Betsy Hp: The reason I'm not giving Voldemort much credit for it was that DH made it appear so insultingly easy. (Insulting for the WW, anyway.) I never got the sense that Voldemort could have succeeded as he did in the RW, so it wasn't even creepy in an "informing on real life" kind of way. Instead I found myself rolling my eyes at how easily lead the citizens of the WW were. And seeing it as yet another symptom of that horrible sickness they're all suffering from. > >>Pippin: > Voldemort doesn't need to publicly kill large numbers of wizards at > once -- that sort of crude display is for Muggles. Yes, it doesn't > seem very scary that in the background lots of people are > disappearing or being killed, or tortured or made into refugees, > because it's all happening very far away from Harry. And that, if > you think about it, is pretty scary too. And very true to life. Betsy Hp: Honestly, I think it's pretty darn *un*realistic. If his world were really under this sort of attack, Harry would notice. Except for some reason JKR takes him off-screen and tucks him away in a little apartment in the woods. It's an odd story-telling choice, to my mind. Usually when societies collapse, those living in the society *do* feel it. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Seriously, for me, Draco and Snape were the "face" of Slytherin. > > That they didn't get redeemed in the end, that Harry never > > really saw them as people (that name thing doesn't work for me, > > too little, too late, too lame), and that *they* never got a > > chance to change was the biggest failure of the books, IMO. > >>Pippin: > Change into what? A useful citizen? An honored hero of the past? > Oh wait, they did that. > Betsy Hp: Change into fully formed human beings. Which, granted, would have put them ahead of the rest of the cast. But I'd been hoping for more from the rest of the gang, too. > >>Pippin: > I could be wrong, but it doesn't sound like you want Draco and > Snape to be redeemed, it sounds like you want them to be co- > redeemers with Harry. Betsy Hp: Yeah, to a certain extent I did. I expected Harry to grow himself (though I figured he had a smaller way to go than Draco and Snape), and through his growth heal his world. Instead, nothing changed. > >>Pippin: > > Both were freed from evil and slavery, which is what redemption > means. > Betsy Hp: Hm, I'd say Snape died a slave, honestly. He certainly wasn't his own man. And I don't think Draco was ever really freed either. But, in a deeper sense, the WW is still embroiled in evil and slavery. Voldemort was the manifestation of the sickness the WW is suffering from, but killing him didn't effect a cure. Heck, Harry didn't even address the issue. And so the WW is still horribly stratified and bigoted, ripe for another Dark Lord to appear. Oh, and slavery still very much exists. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 19:03:25 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:03:25 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180657 > >>Pippin: > Voldemort doesn't need to publicly kill large numbers of wizards at > once -- that sort of crude display is for Muggles. Yes, it doesn't > seem very scary that in the background lots of people are > disappearing or being killed, or tortured or made into refugees, > because it's all happening very far away from Harry. And that, if > you think about it, is pretty scary too. And very true to life. Betsy Hp: Honestly, I think it's pretty darn *un*realistic. If his world were really under this sort of attack, Harry would notice. < HUGE> Alla: Not necessarily at all. During Stalin's reign of terror millions and millions of people disappeared. They dissappeared in camps, they were tortured and killed by KGB, etc, etc, it is a very well known fact. But it is ALSO a fact that plenty of people lived happily or as happily as it was possible under soviet regime, having no freaking idea that this is happening to many people. Why? Because it did not concern their families, their loved ones, etc. I mean, obviously since repressions were happening on such massive scale, LOTS of people knew, but LOTS did not either. I think it was very well portrayed. My grandmother for example had no idea whatsoever. > > >>Pippin: > > I could be wrong, but it doesn't sound like you want Draco and > > Snape to be redeemed, it sounds like you want them to be co- > > redeemers with Harry. > > Betsy Hp: > Yeah, to a certain extent I did. I expected Harry to grow himself > (though I figured he had a smaller way to go than Draco and Snape), > and through his growth heal his world. Instead, nothing changed. > Alla: Please tell me if I am wrong, but you pretty much said yes to Pippin's question that you wanted Snape and Draco to be coredeemers with Harry, no? So that would be a fair summary to say that the characters you wished to take central stage together with Harry did not take the central stage ( although I thought Snape took it pretty central, maybe not as central as Harry, but of course matter of opinion). What does it have to do with merits of the books again? From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net Mon Jan 14 19:56:04 2008 From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:56:04 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180658 > Allie: > > I wonder what Harry and Ginny's children would be considered. > Harry, being "half-blood," and Ginny being "pureblood," would that > make them 3/4 bloods? :) For how many generations must one's > parents be magical before one is considered pureblood? Pippin Fowler: Again, the choices are: pureblood: both parents are pureblood halfblood: one parent is pureblood, one parent is not pureblood neither: no parent is pureblood Harry and Ginny would have halfblood children, because one parent is pureblood and one parent is not. The focus (prejudices and 'racial purity' discussions aside), from a breeding standpoint, is on tracking the pureblood line. Ask your neighbourhood livestock breeder. Pippin Fowler From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 14 21:45:22 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:45:22 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180659 > Betsy Hp: > The reason I'm not giving Voldemort much credit for it was that DH > made it appear so insultingly easy. (Insulting for the WW, anyway.) > I never got the sense that Voldemort could have succeeded as he did > in the RW, so it wasn't even creepy in an "informing on real life" > kind of way. Pippin: In real life he wouldn't have the Imperius curse so he wouldn't be able to make people obey him without training them. Not only are many of the the visible agents of Voldemort's will innocent, they can't be intimidated by the punishment of other collaborators. So the WW takeover is faster. But the end result is the same: ruthless suppression of opposition and an atmosphere of distrust make it impossible to organize a meaningful resistance. Alla has answered in regard to Stalinist Russia but I'll add that the same thing happened with Nazi Germany. People not directly involved did not realize the scope of what was happening. For example, the NY Times printed thousands of stories about what is now called The Holocaust, but it was never treated as major news. > > >>Pippin: > > > > Both were freed from evil and slavery, which is what redemption > > means. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Hm, I'd say Snape died a slave, honestly. He certainly wasn't his > own man. And I don't think Draco was ever really freed either. Pippin: Snape was pretending to be Voldemort's slave, and when his role required him to die, he did, or so it seems. But you mean his service to Dumbledore, don't you? There seems to be this idea that voluntary service is a form of slavery, which I don't understand. Are you imagining a completely non-hierarchical society? I don't know of any successful ones in real life. In what way is Draco not free? Betsy Hp: > But, in a deeper sense, the WW is still embroiled in evil and > slavery. Pippin: It is now being led by a man who not only believes in basic rights for Muggles but actually knows enough about them to successfully work among them. The secretary to the PM would have to have some grounding in liberal democracy too. Slavery still existed after the American Revolution, but I wouldn't say there was no progress in human rights over the previous regime. Pippin From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 21:52:03 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:52:03 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180660 > Alla: > > Slaps her fingers even more. I allowed Remus to wallow in self pity > for six books, I mean for three books. It is a cumilative effect you > see, there is a moment when it started being too much for me. a_svirn: I don't remember him wallowing in self-pity, at all ? until that scene. Oh well, there was also that bitter comment about being a ready-made spy. Not that one bitter comment constitutes wallowing, much less whining. If anything he's always been reserved and distant. > Alla: > I guess Harry did not reach that moment for me - he whined, but I > was not fed up by his whining. Probably because whining was not the > only thing he did and if he did not like something, he at least > sometimes tried to correct it for the better. > > Yes, I know Remus did heroic things, but not once I saw him trying > to CHANGE what he whined about. a_svirn: And that would be? Being a werewolf? He cannot change that, alas. Being discriminated against? Well, that's why he's fighting Voldemot ? among other things. And he's the practically the only adult member of the Order who *does* something to change the WW for the better in DH. Or tries to. Being destitute and unemployable? How on earth is he supposed he change that? Having fathered a potential werewolf? Again, the deed is done and cannot be undone (I suppose Tonks wouldn't have even contemplated abortion). So you see the reason for his self-pity (which he does *not* indulge in normally), is precisely that ? he *cannot* change any of that. It is quite out of his control. > Alla: > He loses his job and he is mad at Snape? Go confront him, PLEASE, > tell the bastard to his face what you think about him ( Please, I am > not going to argue about whether it was Remus fault or not, I am > only talking about Remus' feelings about Snape and mine too). You > are not happy that Dumbledore sent you of all people to werewolfes? > Tell another bastard that you. are.not.going, that there are other > tasks you can be doing. a_svirn: So you want him to rail and rave? Kick furniture? Demolish Dumbledore's office, perhaps, like Harry in OotP? Well, that's exactly what he did at No. 12. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 22:09:47 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:09:47 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180661 > Pippin: > In real life he wouldn't have the Imperius curse so he wouldn't > be able to make people obey him without training them. Not > only are many of the the visible agents of Voldemort's will innocent, > they can't be intimidated by the punishment of other collaborators. > So the WW takeover is faster. > > But the end result is the same: ruthless suppression of opposition > and an atmosphere of distrust make it impossible to organize a > meaningful resistance. > > > Alla has answered in regard to Stalinist Russia but I'll add that the > same thing happened with Nazi Germany. People not directly involved > did not realize the scope of what was happening. For example, the NY > Times printed thousands of stories about what is now called The Holocaust, > but it was never treated as major news. That doesn't mean that ordinary Germans didn't have an inkling of what was going on. They did alright, and so did Russians, they just thought that it didn't concern them. And like in Stalin's Soviet Union or in Hitler's Germany, the British wizards couldn't possibly fail to notice that their neighbours and their children's school- mates were disappearing. Especially since there weren't that many of them ? the WW is a very small world indeed. a_svirn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 22:10:31 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:10:31 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180662 a_svirn: And that would be? Being a werewolf? He cannot change that, alas. Being discriminated against? Well, that's why he's fighting Voldemot ? among other things. And he's the practically the only adult member of the Order who *does* something to change the WW for the better in DH. Or tries to. Being destitute and unemployable? How on earth is he supposed he change that? Having fathered a potential werewolf? Again, the deed is done and cannot be undone (I suppose Tonks wouldn't have even contemplated abortion). So you see the reason for his self-pity (which he does *not* indulge in normally), is precisely that ? he *cannot* change any of that. It is quite out of his control. Alla: Please tell me where exactly I suggested that he CAN change being a werewolf, or being unemployable? I gave you three examples which I suggested he could change or at least try to change, none of them includes doing anything that is being beyond his control. And actually, come to think of it - yes, I think he can change being unemployable, but this is the kind of thing that I would not require of him - too much change, so I say that I am not saying he could have done anything to change that. Although him being half blood, why not to go to Muggle world, eh? Why not to get a job there? Not even a permanent job? But as I said, before you say that I am asking too much of him, I am NOT. Just pure hypothetical. a_svirn: So you want him to rail and rave? Kick furniture? Demolish Dumbledore's office, perhaps, like Harry in OotP? Well, that's exactly what he did at No. 12. Alla: No, I want him to confront people who wronged him in the calm adult manner and who knows, maybe something would have come out of it. Dumbledore for example seemed way too accustomed for all adult order members doing whatever he says, who knows maybe the novelty of Remus saying NO may have shaken him up a little bit. And I have no idea how many times I have to say that it is a good thing that he as the only order member tried to do something - it is his reasons I do not find particularly admirable. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 14 22:19:38 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:19:38 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180663 > a_svirn: > I wouldn't. Because the only instance in which Lupin's behavior can > be construed as cowardly, is that he probably ? and neither we, nor > Harry know this for sure ? did not discuss his decision with Tonks. Pippin: He was cowardly in not telling Dumbledore that Sirius was an animagus - he said so himself. He was also cowardly, or at least undependable, in implying he would be available to Harry at the end of OOP. He says he couldn't write because he was away on a mission, but we know he was around for part of that summer. Lupin has a long history of making commitments and then reneging. Harry was quite right to call him on it -- being a friend does not mean you have to check your principles at the door. Besides, if Lupin ran out on his own wife and child, what makes you think he'd have stuck by Harry? I think it was very much about seeking some personal glory -- the first thing Lupin wants to know is whether Harry is on some special mission from Dumbledore. If he just wants to protect Harry, who is in special danger from Voldemort whether he has a mission or not, why should it matter? Lupin and Tonks did not keep their marriage a secret: the child is a known werewolf's child whether Lupin is part of his life or not. What good will it do the child for Lupin to run away? Lupin's argument seems to be that a werewolf child has no chance of a decent life anyway, so being fatherless won't matter (though his own parents did everything they could for Remus), while a non-werewolf child will despise him. It seems to be about the welfare of the child, but it isn't really, it's about Remus not being able to endure seeing the child suffer as he suffered, or else not wanting a child who might look down on him. Or that's the way Harry seems to see it, and I think he's right. Never once does Lupin say it's about doing his part in the war against Voldemort. If that's what he feels, why not say so? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 22:21:22 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:21:22 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180664 a_svirn: > That doesn't mean that ordinary Germans didn't have an inkling of > what was going on. They did alright, and so did Russians, they just > thought that it didn't concern them. And like in Stalin's Soviet > Union or in Hitler's Germany, the British wizards couldn't possibly > fail to notice that their neighbours and their children's school- > mates were disappearing. Especially since there weren't that many of > them ? the WW is a very small world indeed. Alla: Blinks. Surely you cannot speak for the whole russian population? I mean, I am not being sarcastic, but this generalisation strikes me as not fair. I am speaking only for the existance of the people who had no idea whatsoever. Let me say it again - they did not think that it did not concern them, they just did not know that it was happening. I mean I am sure some people knew just thought it did not concern them, but some did not know at all. Especially if one lived in villages and had nothing to do with the opposition to the regime whatsoever. My grandmother is dead, so I cannot even ask her again, but I remember that conversation very well. She did not know and neither did anybody in their family and I am sure lots of people were in the same situation. I also remember reading some documentaries about people who did not know, but cannot bring the links alas. So, I can imagine same being true for british wizards. After all even WW being small as it is, Voldemort does not seem to have manpower to target every wizarding family or even every second one. Except when they are torturing and killing for fun, Voldemort seems to be going after someone who is direct threat to him. I do not think he considered whole WW to be such. Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 23:23:29 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:23:29 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180665 > Alla: > > Please tell me where exactly I suggested that he CAN change being a > werewolf, or being unemployable? I gave you three examples which I > suggested he could change or at least try to change, none of them > includes doing anything that is being beyond his control. > > And actually, come to think of it - yes, I think he can change being > unemployable, but this is the kind of thing that I would not require > of him - too much change, so I say that I am not saying he could > have done anything to change that. Although him being half blood, > why not to go to Muggle world, eh? Why not to get a job there? Not > even a permanent job? But as I said, before you say that I am asking > too much of him, I am NOT. Just pure hypothetical. > a_svirn: But, Alla, none of your examples has anything to do with his alleged self-pity. His did *not* whine about losing his job. On the contrary, he said that he saw the parents' point ? he was indeed too dangerous to teach at a boarding school. And though Harry wanted to pursue that conversation, Lupin changed the topic, and asked him about his Patronus instead. I don't see why you would call that whining. As for spying on werewolves, his bitterness wasn't directed at Dumbledore ? he was bitter because he was what he was ? a ready made werewolf. Which he couldn't change. As for Molly, I think that perhaps he had. Told her what he thought, that is. When she started her spiel about poor, lonely Tonks at Christmas he said that she was not lonely ? that she was with her family. Which effectively closed the subject. What's so whiny about it? > Alla: > > No, I want him to confront people who wronged him in the calm adult > manner and who knows, maybe something would have come out of it. > > Dumbledore for example seemed way too accustomed for all adult order > members doing whatever he says, who knows maybe the novelty of Remus > saying NO may have shaken him up a little bit. a_svirn: Well, I don't see why you have to single out Lupin, then. He did exactly what every other member of the order had always done. Though I too find that exasperating. > > a_svirn: > > I wouldn't. Because the only instance in which Lupin's behavior can > > be construed as cowardly, is that he probably ? and neither we, nor > > Harry know this for sure ? did not discuss his decision with Tonks. > > Pippin: > He was cowardly in not telling Dumbledore that Sirius was > an animagus - he said so himself. a_svirn: Yes. But that has nothing to do with the situation in question, does it? > Pippin: He was also cowardly, or > at least undependable, in implying he would be available to Harry > at the end of OOP. He says he couldn't write because he was away > on a mission, but we know he was around for part of that summer. a_svirn: When did he say that he would be "available"? Do you mean the scene when *several* members of the Order bullied Vernon Dursley? Well, the Dursleys were pretty tame that summer, so there was no reason for Lupin or anyone else to threaten them further. (Though Dumbledore did, anyway.) > Pippin: > Lupin has a long history of making commitments and then reneging. a_svirn: Would you mind providing an illustration for this statement? > Pippin: > Harry was quite right to call him on it -- being a friend does not > mean you have to check your principles at the door. a_svirn: I don't remember Harry calling Lupin on his nonexistent history of broken commitments. > Pippin: Besides, if > Lupin ran out on his own wife and child, what makes you think he'd > have stuck by Harry? a_svirn: His spotless record as a member of the Order? > Pippin: > I think it was very much about seeking some personal glory -- > the first thing Lupin wants to know is whether Harry is > on some special mission from Dumbledore. a_svirn: And did Arthur and Molly who asked similar questions also seek glory? Did Bill? > Pippin: If he just wants to > protect Harry, who is in special danger from Voldemort whether > he has a mission or not, why should it matter? a_svirn: Because Harry would only need protection is he had a mission. If he had simply gone into hiding like the entire wizarding population he could simply stay at No. 12, without Lupin's or anyone else's help. > Pippin: > Lupin and Tonks did not keep their marriage a secret: the child is > a known werewolf's child whether Lupin is part of his > life or not. What good will it do the child for Lupin to run away? a_svirn: If they divorced before the child was born it wouldn't be his officially. Though, of course it was a werewolf nothing would help at all. > Pippin: > Lupin's argument seems to be that a werewolf child has no chance > of a decent life anyway, so being fatherless won't matter (though his > own parents did everything they could for Remus), while a > non-werewolf child will despise him. It seems to be about the > welfare of the child, but it isn't really, it's about Remus not being > able to endure seeing the child suffer as he suffered, or else not > wanting a child who might look down on him. Or that's > the way Harry seems to see it, and I think he's right. a_svirn: I'd have agreed with you if it had been his argument. But it wasn't. The argument was that the child would have a better chance to conform to the new regime without Remus being in the picture. > Pippin > Never once does Lupin say it's about doing his part in the war > against Voldemort. If that's what he feels, why not > say so? a_svirn: Because it's pretty damn obvious? Because he had fought Voldemort for years since his early adulthood and Harry knows it? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 00:10:58 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:10:58 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180666 Carol earlier: > > > > Again, I've already said this, so please forgive me for repeating myself. There are two possible ways to protect HRH from Lupin's transformations: to lock him up (cf. the Shrieking Shack) or to make Wolfbane Potion. > > Mike: > There is a third option. Lupin can do whatever those other werewolves that don't have access to wolfsbane do. Apparate to an island out in the Irish Sea, some vast uninhabited moor, a place like the Forbidden Forest; some place where he'll do no harm. There a supposed to be many more "of [his] kind" besides Greyback. What do you suppose they do during a full moon? What did Lupin himself do during the year of HBP when he was supposedly spying on the other werewolves for Dumbledore? Do you suppose he left them and didn't transform with them? Not a good way to make friends and influence werewolves, wouldn't you say? > Carol again: Since you concede a fair number of my points and we'll never agree on the others (Harry's right to criticize Lupin's behavior, etc.) I'll jut add quickly that Harry does regret the loss of his temper and he does ask dead!Lupin's forgiveness (whereas Lupin, who kicked the furniture and hit Harry with a spell, implicitly forgives Harry but never apologizes for his own conduct. Dead!Lupin says, "I'm sorry, too," but what he's sorry for is leaving his only son an orphan, not his behavior toward Harry in Harry's own house. To return to Mike's post, we don't know what happens to most of the werewolves in the WW when they transform. You'd think, wouldn't you, that a lot more people would be bitten, adding rather dramatically to the werewolf population. It's one of the weak points in the stories. Whether there's a werewolf colony in the Forbidden Forest or not (I think not, or DD would have been a lot more careful about letting the students out onto the grounds on full-moon nights), Lupin can't get there to hide. The Forbidden Forest is on Hogwarts grounds, and you can't Apparate or Disapparate into it (or pass through gates guarded by DEs once Voldemort has taken over the school). What Lupin does without Wolfbane Potion after PoA, I don't know. Clearly, he's transforming somewhere given the shape he's in when we see him in HBP, but I doubt that he's hidomg om 12 GP to do it. Those wolf howls would be a lot louder and scarier than Mrs. Black's shrieks. The Shrieking Shack had the reputation as the most haunted place in Britain. It's a question I'd want someone to ask JKR if I had more faith in her interview responses. Carol, wondering what Lupin *did* do on full-moon nights when he was living with the werewolves and was assuredly not taking Wolfbane potion From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Tue Jan 15 00:41:48 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:41:48 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180667 > Carol again: > > Since you concede a fair number of my points and we'll never agree on the others (Harry's right to criticize Lupin's behavior, etc.) I'll jut add quickly that Harry does regret the loss of his temper and he does ask dead!Lupin's forgiveness (whereas Lupin, who kicked the furniture and hit Harry with a spell, implicitly forgives Harry but never apologizes for his own conduct. Dead!Lupin says, "I'm sorry, too," but what he's sorry for is leaving his only son an orphan, not his behavior toward Harry in Harry's own house. Tiffany: I didn't like how Lupin didn't apologize for his own conduct then as well. Harry should've known better than to let his emotions get the better of him at such a point in time. However, Lupin's conduct was far more serious & aggressive towards Harry. I like Lupin a lot in the novels, but when he kicked the furniture & used a spell on Harry, I didn't care for him too much then. >Carol: > > To return to Mike's post, we don't know what happens to most of the werewolves in the WW when they transform. You'd think, wouldn't you, that a lot more people would be bitten, adding rather dramatically to the werewolf population. It's one of the weak points in the stories. Whether there's a werewolf colony in the Forbidden Forest or not (I think not, or DD would have been a lot more careful about letting the students out onto the grounds on full-moon nights), Lupin can't get there to hide. The Forbidden Forest is on Hogwarts grounds, and you can't Apparate or Disapparate into it (or pass through gates guarded by DEs once Voldemort has taken over the school). Tiffany: I too was letdown by the lack of information about werewolves in the WW when they transformed. It seemed like tossing in something about them becoming werewolves once bitten would've been mentioned, but it wasn't. It seemed like the only werewolf we knew a lot about was Lupin, but most of the rest of the werewolves in the WW weren't mentioned at all or had only brief mentions, compared with Lupin. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 00:49:44 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:49:44 -0000 Subject: Explain this passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180668 Tiffany wrote: > > That sounds a lot like Snape & sometimes I think he lost his brain in > the Bermuda Triangle also. I don't hate Snape, I actually have some > respect for what he's capable of, but at times he doesn't seem to have > all his ducks in row. I liked some of his ideas & decisions in the > books, but his truly grand moments of genius are few & far between, if > you ask me. > Carol responds: Oh, I don't know. He managed to convince Harry that he was extremely brave and worthy of naming his second son after, along with Albus DD. (Sirius also rates only a middle name.) Of course, our reactions to any character, perhaps especially Snape, are partly subjective, but even his mistakes (revealing the Prophecy to Voldemort) have important consequences, and, certainly, had it not been for his request to LV to spare Lily, she would not have had the opportunity to offer herself in Harry's place. She would simply have been murdered like James and there would have been no chosen one. Also, of course, he saved Harry's life in SS/PS and gave him the crucial bit of information in DH without which he wouldn't have sacrificed himself and the outcome of the conflict with Voldemort, including the weakening of Voldemort's magic, would have been very different. All of which amounts to Snape's being a key player in the plot rather than having moments of grand genius, I admit. However, Snape does have some grand moments on-page (showing up Lockhart in CoS, "Spinner's End," the duel with Harry at the end of HBP, tricking Voldemort with his Occlumency in "The Dark Lord Rising" (since we later see, with Gregorovitch, just how strong and invasive LV's Legilimency is, that's quite a feat), and producing those memories out of his head without a wand as he's dying--I don't know of anyone who can match that last bit of spectacular magic. Much of what Snape does, of course, is off-page, but we don't know of anyone else, including Slughorn, who can improve on potions as published in a standard textbook. Nor do we know of anyone else (unless Hermione's jinxed parchment counts) who actually invents spells, not just jinxes and hexes and one Dark curse, but countercurses and at least one charm, Muffliato. He supposedly knew more curses (surely, schoolboy hexes and jinxes) when he was eleven than most seventh-years. He's a superb Occlumens, a reasonably skilled Legilimens, and an expert in nonverbal curses, with fast reflexes, as several scenes show. And he made two curtains of fire, one black and one purple, with separate antidotes (you can't drink the purple antidote and walk through the black fire or vice versa) in SS/PS and, though it's clear only from an exchange with Lockhart, he made the Mandrake Restorative Potion administered by Madam Pomfrey to the Petrified students (and ghost) in CoS. He's one of the few people who can make Wolfbane Potion, for which Lupin managed to be properly grateful until he thought that Severus had murdered Dumbledore. His Veritaserum plays a crucial role in GoF. He is both brave enough and intelligent enough, not to mention skilled enough, to outwit Voldemort and earn Dumbledore's trust (to the extent that DD trusts anyone). Dumbledore relies on him to deliver the Sword of Gryffindor to Harry in the right circumstances (retrieving it requires need and valor), and Snape's plan involving the Doe Patronus is his own ("Don't worry, Dumbledore. I have a plan.") And no one, not even Harry, has such a bright, beautiful, powerful Patronus. No wonder Snape shows no fear of Dementors. Carol, noting that both Harry and Ron regarded the Half-Blood Prince as a genius (too bad he couldn't have been their contemporary and their friend) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 01:29:17 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:29:17 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180669 Betsy Hp wrote: > The reason I'm not giving Voldemort much credit for it was that DH made it appear so insultingly easy. Carol responds: Here, I agree with you. The Muggle-borns, especially, seemed to be oddly without resources for a group that JKR had championed since the introduction of Hermione and especially since CoS. And the Order seemed oddly inept and useless (except for Snape, whose job I certainly don't envy). Betsy Hp: > Yeah, to a certain extent I did. I expected Harry to grow himself (though I figured he had a smaller way to go than Draco and Snape),> and through his growth heal his world. Instead, nothing changed. > Hm, I'd say Snape died a slave, honestly. He certainly wasn't his own man. And I don't think Draco was ever really freed either. Carol responds: As I've argued elsewhere, I think Harry's growth is in his perception, which finally allows him to see at least some Slytherins, including Snape and Draco, as real human beings, flawed but not evil and capable, in Snape's case, of heroism. Draco, at least, has learned that being a DE is far from glorious and that he has no taste for murder or torture. That, IMO, is a big step forward, and doubt that he or his son are likely to fall for the propaganda of the next Dark Lord should one arise. As for Snape, he made his own choice to work with Dumbledore (even though it was only Portrait!Dumbledore) to the end. He could have returned to LV, ignoring DD's portrait or even destroying it once he became headmaster and bringing in more DEs to replace McGonagall and Flitwick. He did what only he could do to help bring down Voldemort, and without him, neither living Dumbledore nor Portrait!Dumbledore would have succeeded in his (flawed) plan. He did not have to go along with DD's request to kill him, nor did he have to take the Unbreakable Vow. He could have betrayed Dumbledore, or failed him, or chosen to die at any time. Instead, he was "probably the bravest man" Harry ever knew. If that's being a slave, then your definition of slavery is different from mine. Perhaps he was a slave to his own word, his promise to do "anything" to protect Lily, later transferred to her son. Keeping your word used to be called integrity or honor. I've never heard it called slavery before. As for Lily, yes, he loved her all his life. Yes, he felt guilty and did everything he could to atone for her death. But that can have nothing to do with his attempt to save other lives than Harry's: "How many men and women have you watched die, Severus?" "Lately, only those whom I could not save." I did miss Snape's characteristic witty sarcasm in DH and would have liked to see more of him had the plot and pov allowed it. Thank goodness for "Would you like me to do it now? Or would you like a few moments to compose an epitaph?" That moment, at least, is classic Snape. After Snape has contained the ring curse in DD's hand, DD says, "I am lucky, extremely lucky, to have you, Severus." And he's exactly right. No one else could have done what Snape does, through his own choice, throughout the seven books. Carol, remembering Ishmael's words in "Moby Dick," "Who ain't a slave?" and thinking that they apply even to Dumbledore, who serves, or tries to serve, the WW in his own eccentric and Machiavellian way From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jan 15 02:08:32 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:08:32 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180670 > > Alla: > > > > Please tell me where exactly I suggested that he CAN change being a > > werewolf, or being unemployable? I gave you three examples which I > > suggested he could change or at least try to change, none of them > > includes doing anything that is being beyond his control. > > > > And actually, come to think of it - yes, I think he can change > being > > unemployable, but this is the kind of thing that I would not > require > > of him - too much change, so I say that I am not saying he could > > have done anything to change that. Although him being half blood, > > why not to go to Muggle world, eh? Why not to get a job there? Not > > even a permanent job? But as I said, before you say that I am > asking > > too much of him, I am NOT. Just pure hypothetical. > > > > a_svirn: > But, Alla, none of your examples has anything to do with his alleged > self-pity. His did *not* whine about losing his job. On the contrary, > he said that he saw the parents' point ? he was indeed too dangerous > to teach at a boarding school. And though Harry wanted to pursue that > conversation, Lupin changed the topic, and asked him about his > Patronus instead. I don't see why you would call that whining. As for > spying on werewolves, his bitterness wasn't directed at Dumbledore ? > he was bitter because he was what he was ? a ready made werewolf. > Which he couldn't change. As for Molly, I think that perhaps he had. > Told her what he thought, that is. When she started her spiel about > poor, lonely Tonks at Christmas he said that she was not lonely ? > that she was with her family. Which effectively closed the subject. > What's so whiny about it? Magpie: Lupin's situation is handled rather one-sidedly in the book (completely one-sidedly). As far as all our pov charactesr are concerned, being a werewolf is pretty easy as long as you have the right attitude. That's the only "side" to this we ever see. Because for them, the right attitude is all that matters. "But I don't care that you're a werewolf" is how the Trio, Tonks, and everyone pretty much feels. Lupin himself compares Harry to James who called it his "furry little problem." And it's nice of them to do that if you're looking at it the way they are, that they're not going to let this define their friend. But that's pretty much all they have to do. Be nice guys and be nice to Lupin. Forgive him for forgetting his polyjuice that time. Offer verbal support when they hear about laws passed keeping him from employment. But if we were seeing the series from Lupin's pov I don't think it would be so easy. Every time we see him he's getting worse, looking shabbier. Easy enough to say "he should work harder to get a job"--when we keep hearing how difficult that is (and probably would be in the Muggle world too, with a whole new host of problems). Presumably he does have a job of some sort. He's supporting himself, however meagerly. He's not actually telling everyone his problems that we see--he just seems to make people uncomfortable by his problems being public. I just don't think of it as exactly whiny if a grown man would rather feel like he's doing something positive in the world and for his family (even in a roundabout way by fighting against Voldemort) rather than being just a danger and a burden and painting a bigger target on their backs. Tonks keeps saying these things don't matter, but they would understandably matter to him, especially as this new regime makes that all the more clear. It's a war--what's odd about being separated? We're in Harry's pov and it's not like I think we needed an insider! werewolf subplot. But still that means we're never really going to see the struggles he's facing--but they are consistent and on-going (note when there's a werewolf in St. Mungo's Molly's worried about him even sharing a room with Arthur while Lupin goes over to talk to the guy, probably the way only werewolves can talk to each other). The pov on werewolves we do see belong to everyone else. Unfortunately all those people who have no clue what it's like and never will and will never have to face anything like the life he faces are the ones always giving us what's presumably the author's prescription--just marry the girl who wants to marry you! Raise a family! Pretend you aren't a werewolf--that's what we do! That's seems to be the right attitude to take--and an easy one to take if all you have to do is say "But I don't mind that you're a werewolf!" Anything Lupin ever starts to say on the matter is overruled as wrong. If Tonks is happy Lupin ought to be happy too. But I don't think any of his concerned are so unreasonable, and his offer isn't crazy or purely selfish, since it seems to come from the wish not to be a daredevil or a hero but to do something to help rather than drag people down. I also think he's been perfectly fine towards Harry. It's not so bad for him to have an adult who will help him (and Harry knows that) from a polite distance. -m From sherriola at gmail.com Tue Jan 15 02:10:01 2008 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:10:01 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <478c15fe.24b48c0a.7ebc.6937@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180671 Tiffany: I didn't like how Lupin didn't apologize for his own conduct then as well. Harry should've known better than to let his emotions get the better of him at such a point in time. However, Lupin's conduct was far more serious & aggressive towards Harry. I like Lupin a lot in the novels, but when he kicked the furniture & used a spell on Harry, I didn't care for him too much then. Sherry now: Why was Harry's behavior so wrong? Several people have said this, and it boggles my mind. Lupin needed a good swift kick in the rear, and Harry gave it to him. Frankly, I cheered! If I'd ever gone on and on to my friends or family with a bunch of self-pitying whining, run out on my responsibilities, using my disability as a flimsy excuse, any one of my friends or family would act the same. Particularly, perhaps, the young people who have been taught to respect me as a competent, independent person. And I would deserve it and not punch them for telling me the truth. That does not minimize the serious discrimination Lupin faced in his life, but he let it stop him, let it become an excuse and a crutch to get him out of personal closeness and taking responsibility and charge of his own life and choices. I thought Harry was absolutely right. I've said before in this thread that I had always liked Lupin, but I was disgusted with him in this scene and was glad someone, at last, had stopped buying into his poor me the werewolf act, and told him off. It did end up having the desired effect, because Lupin appeared to have gotten his act together and acted like an adult, the competent valuable adult he really was, not the self-pitying jerk he had been playing for too long. Sherry From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Jan 15 02:18:03 2008 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:18:03 -0500 Subject: Wizarding genetics Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180672 Catlady, that was an interesting analysis. I don't know enough about genetics to speak to the scientific side, but there is a question that arises for me. It seems that SOME Squibs at least, although they can't actively work magic, have passive magical senses. Flitch, for example, can see ghosts and other magical phenomenon, and seems to be able to communicate with Mrs. Norris in a way that a normal human couldn't with an animal; when Mrs. Figg asserts that Squibs can see Dementors she's not telling the truth, of course, but the Wizinagemot don't seem to think that it is impossible, and she too seems to be able to communicate with her kneazle/cat hybrids. My opinion is that there are two sets of genes--one that enables one to sense magical energies, and one that enables one to manipulate them. If one has both, one is a wizard; if one can sense them, but cannot manipulate them, one is a Squib. What one would call someone who could manipulate them if s/he could sense them, I don't know. Perhaps they are the people who seem to have unusual luck, good or bad--they are unconsciously manipulating those magical energies which are all around them, but which they cannot consciously sense. Muggleborn Squibs are what we call Psychics, Mediums, etc. 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 1kf.lists at earthlink.net Tue Jan 15 04:49:52 2008 From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:49:52 -0000 Subject: Wizarding genetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180673 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > Muggleborn > Squibs are what we call Psychics, Mediums, etc. Pippin Fowler: So, comparing to the Pureblood/Halfblood situation, if a Medium and a Muggle have children, are the children Smalls? If a Medium and a Giant have children, are they Larges? PF thinking he does not need to be a Psychic to know these answers From klewellen at shellworld.net Tue Jan 15 05:09:44 2008 From: klewellen at shellworld.net (Karen Lewellen) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:09:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: just how different? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180674 I mean are the book editions from each other? I expected and have seen some of the differences between the UK and American editions. However others have mentioned differences between the UK ones and the Canadian ones too? If so, now that I am here, I am wondering if an entire re-read is in order? Karen From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 08:58:02 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:58:02 -0000 Subject: just how different? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180675 --- Karen Lewellen wrote: > > I mean are the book editions from each other? > I expected and have seen some of the differences between the > UK and American editions. However others have mentioned > differences between the UK ones and the Canadian ones too? > If so, now that I am here, I am wondering if an entire re-read > is in order? > > Karen > bboyminn: There are more differences in the earlier books in the series. In the last book or two there were very few changes. Some changes are for terminology, and others are editing decision that are different between the UK publisher and the US publisher. Though even those differences are so minor you would only see them if you compared side by side. As an example, in I believe the 6th book, Fred says 'keep your pecker up' which has a completely different meaning in the USA. In the UK, it mean take heart or keep your spirits up. I'm drawing a blank on what the equivalent line says in the UK edition. An example of an editing decision, in the first book, in one edition, Sirius's vault number is mentioned (vault# 711). In the other edition, it is not mentioned. I believe the HP Lexicon has a section that points out the difference between US and UK editions, you might want to check there. Though there is nothing significant enough to change the story. All the changes are minor. Steve/bboyminn From falkeli at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 09:37:53 2008 From: falkeli at yahoo.com (hp_fan_2008) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:37:53 -0000 Subject: just how different? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180676 Karen: > I mean are the book editions from each other? > I expected and have seen some of the differences between the > UK and American editions. However others have mentioned > differences between the UK ones and the Canadian ones too? > If so, now that I am here, I am wondering if an entire re-read > is in order? bboyminn: > > Though there is nothing significant enough to change the > story. All the changes are minor. hp_fan_2008: The biggest change is actually in book 6, where in the American version (pages 591-592) Dumbledore promises Draco Malfoy to fake the deaths of Draco and Narcissa ("Nobody would be surprised that you had died in your attempt to kill me -- forgive me, but Lord Voldemort probably expects it. Nor would the Death Eaters be surprised that we had captured and killed your mother -- it is what they would do themselves, after all"); in the British version Dumbledore only promises to hide them. This difference is minor as far as the plot goes, but was used by fans who were claiming that Dumbledore didn't really die at the end of book 6. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 15 13:58:08 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:58:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's offer (was Re: just how different? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180677 > hp_fan_2008: > > The biggest change is actually in book 6, where in the American > version (pages 591-592) Dumbledore promises Draco Malfoy to fake the > deaths of Draco and Narcissa ("Nobody would be surprised that you had > died in your attempt to kill me -- forgive me, but Lord Voldemort > probably expects it. Nor would the Death Eaters be surprised that we > had captured and killed your mother -- it is what they would do > themselves, after all"); in the British version Dumbledore only > promises to hide them. This difference is minor as far as the plot > goes, but was used by fans who were claiming that Dumbledore didn't > really die at the end of book 6. Potioncat: Now that you mention it... HBP left many of us wondering whether Snape and DD had some plan, whether DD was really dead, whether Snape was continuing his role as spy...on and on. McGonagall, Lupin, Tonks had no idea, but surely someone knew DD's plan. We will discover in DH that no one knew anything. So, what do you think would have happened if Draco had shown up at the Burrow one morning. "Excuse me, Mr. Weasley, but I'd like to take advantage of the offer the Headmaster made just before Sir offed him. Where should Mother send our trunks?" So...why did DD make that offer and could the Order really do it? Given how things turned out in DH, I'm not so sure. But at any rate, who would have known? What was DD up to, or what was JKR up to? Would things have gone any differently if Draco had quickly agreed? Potioncat, no theories, just questions. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 15 14:37:46 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:37:46 -0000 Subject: Explain this passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180678 > > Carol, noting that both Harry and Ron regarded the Half-Blood Prince > as a genius (too bad he couldn't have been their contemporary and > their friend) Potioncat: Interesting isn't it, that these two Gryffindor boys liked this Slytherin?--or what they knew of him. They didn't find the magic to be "dark" or horrible. It reminds me again of the excuse given that James didn't like Severus because Severus was into Dark Magic. The real issue was that James disliked Severus because of a Slytherin bias. I have to wonder again, if the Hat had offered Gryffindor to Severus, if he would have taken it? Would Lily being there be enough, or would James being there have been too much? Potioncat From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 14:46:17 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:46:17 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's offer (was Re: just how different? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180679 > Potioncat: > So, what do you think would have happened if Draco had shown up at the > Burrow one morning. "Excuse me, Mr. Weasley, but I'd like to take > advantage of the offer the Headmaster made just before Sir offed him. > Where should Mother send our trunks?" > > But at any rate, who > would have known? What was DD up to, or what was JKR up to? Would > things have gone any diffrently if Draco had quickly agreed? zgirnius: In the fanfic I wrote with this premise, I had Draco show up with Narcissa at the Dursleys and surrender to Harry. Not only because it was fun to have Vernon react to strange wizards at his door, and to have Cissy attempt to chat with Petunia, but because the one person who knew for sure of the offer, was Harry. I think probably no one else knew. If Albus planned for no one to know or suspect about Snape's loyalties, I think this would have been diofficult to discuss in advance. But this is something Dumbledore may have believed could be done on short notice. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jan 15 15:07:47 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:07:47 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: <478c15fe.24b48c0a.7ebc.6937@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180680 > Sherry now: > > Why was Harry's behavior so wrong? Several people have said this, and it > boggles my mind. Lupin needed a good swift kick in the rear, and Harry gave > it to him. Frankly, I cheered! If I'd ever gone on and on to my friends or > family with a bunch of self-pitying whining, run out on my responsibilities, > using my disability as a flimsy excuse, any one of my friends or family > would act the same. Particularly, perhaps, the young people who have been > taught to respect me as a competent, independent person. And I would > deserve it and not punch them for telling me the truth. Magpie: I don't think that's an exactly accurate description, though. He's not using his disability as an excuse for getting out of responsibility because he can't handle it--he's offering to take on more responsibility. In fact he's already canonically accepted that however little he may like it, his disability gives him a responsibilty to take on dangerous tasks that it makes him uniquely qualified to do-- like spy on the werewolves. The guy who steps up and goes to live under Fenrir Greyback--who bit him to begin with--because he sees that if he doesn't do it nobody else really can and it's necessary for the cause (well, seemed necessary--it went nowhere) isn't a whiner who uses his disability to get out of responsibility. The reason he's saying he shouldn't be with his family isn't that his illness makes him unable to handle responsibility but that his very presence is a danger to them--which is true--under the current regime. So it's not like "I can't take care of my family because I have a disability" it's more like "my disability puts me on the list to be hunted down by the fascist regime and I won't put my family under that same level of danger via their association with me." A lot of people would find that kind of guilt unacceptable and say if they're family was safer without them they'd leave them. Far from being something that disgusts Harry, it's something Harry himself would do. He thought himself perfectly self-righteous when he considered leaving Grimmauld Place when he thought he was possessed in OotP and he made similar speeches in this book about not wanting to put other people in danger because they're with him. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 15:38:49 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:38:49 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180681 > Magpie: > The reason he's saying he shouldn't be with his family isn't that his > illness makes him unable to handle responsibility but that his very > presence is a danger to them--which is true--under the current regime. zgirnius: It is not his presence that is the danger, it is his *existence*. Bella might or might not leave Tonks alone once she is no longer pregnant, but little Teddy, once he is born, is someone who needs to be 'pruned' from her family tree regardless. His family is already associated with him. > Magpie: > Far from being something that disgusts Harry, it's something Harry > himself would do. He thought himself perfectly self-righteous when he > considered leaving Grimmauld Place when he thought he was possessed in > OotP and he made similar speeches in this book about not wanting to > put other people in danger because they're with him. zgirnius: He was not married to anyone at 12 GP, nor had he fathered a child with anyone there. Harry's most notable noble leaving of someone because of the danger it would put her in, is his breakup with Ginny at the end of HBP. Which, while it had not occured to me before, was quite possibly a contributing factor to Harry's anger, though secondary to the issue of abandoning a child, which is a sore point with Harry. He also tries this speech on Ron and Hermione, who turn him down. Of course, in all three of those cases, he tells the people in question what is going on. My own impression of Lupin from that scene is that he makes his decision without consulting Tonks, which is the source of my problems. I can concoct in my mind a fanfic, which seems to me completely AU, in which, before coming to Harry, Lupin confesses to Tonks that despite his love for her and the baby, he worries about them and the danger their association with him puts them in so very much. And Tonks is happy to know Lupin's recent moodiness does not mean he loves her any less or does not want the baby, and also annoyed that he might think this matters to her, and assures him that she married him fully aware of the possible consequences, that the blame would be hers as much as anyone's if anything went wrong, and the happiness he has brought her means more to her than the risk. And then Lupin tells her he worries that no one is helping Harry, now that Albus is dead, and explains why he feels he is the ideal Order member to help. And Tonks sees the sense in it, says she wishes she could help too, but there is the baby she carries to think of. And so she assures Remus she and her mother will care for the baby when it comes, and stay safe, and she and Teddy will wait for his return after the war. Then Lupin shows up at 12 GP and makes his offer. This (noncanonical) Lupin seems to me the guy you are defending. Heck, I admire that guy too. He just was not in evidence in "The Bribe". From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Jan 15 15:43:06 2008 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:43:06 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Explain this passage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40801150743r7793d29ch2ea221e5a4b1fa30@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180682 > > Potioncat: > > I have to wonder again, if the Hat had offered Gryffindor to Severus, > if he would have taken it? Would Lily being there be enough, or would > James being there have been too much? > montims: actually - good point. And maybe a solution to the Sorting Hat problem a lot of readers seem to have - maybe they should all have been (re)Sorted at the beginning of each year - most students would be happy with their House and want to stay, but some might wish, as they mature, that they were actually in another House for whatever reason, and the Hat would sense their changed attitude... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 15 16:04:03 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:04:03 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180683 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Sherry now: Frankly, I cheered! If I'd ever gone on and on to my > friends or > > family with a bunch of self-pitying whining, run out on my > responsibilities, using my disability as a flimsy excuse, any one of my friends or family would act the same. > > Magpie: > I don't think that's an exactly accurate description, though. He's not > using his disability as an excuse for getting out of responsibility > because he can't handle it--he's offering to take on more > responsibility. In fact he's already canonically accepted that however > little he may like it, his disability gives him a responsibilty to > take on dangerous tasks that it makes him uniquely qualified to do-- > like spy on the werewolves. > Far from being something that disgusts Harry, it's something Harry > himself would do. He thought himself perfectly self-righteous when he > considered leaving Grimmauld Place when he thought he was possessed in > OotP and he made similar speeches in this book about not wanting to > put other people in danger because they're with him. > Pippin: IIRC, the point of Harry's conversation with Phineas was to show us that Harry was rationalizing: he told himself that he was worried about the danger to his friends, but he was more worried about being different from them in a horrible and unique way. Now Harry perceives that Lupin is doing the same thing. Just as Harry forgot about Diary!Ginny, Lupin has forgotten that Harry knows something about being treated as an outcast by his own family and being viewed as a dangerous freak with criminal propensities and powers he could not control. I think we can imagine what it would have meant to Harry during those times to know that he had a father who cared for him, even one who couldn't do anything to help him. I think that gives Harry the right to state his point of view, though it could have been done more tactfully. But then I'm three times his age. Anyway the idea that if Lupin forgets that he is a father, the WW will conveniently forget that Tonks was his wife and the child is his seems fallacious on the order of a kid hiding his eyes and supposing it makes him invisible. Tonks didn't keep her marriage a secret. What's she supposed to do, obliviate everyone who can count to nine? Lupin is not proposing to protect Harry in addition to protecting his child, or in order to protect his child from Voldemort. He's proposing that the child won't suffer by his absence, which is absurd. Pippin From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 17:09:33 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:09:33 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180684 > > Magpie: > > The reason he's saying he shouldn't be with his family isn't that > his > > illness makes him unable to handle responsibility but that his very > > presence is a danger to them--which is true--under the current > regime. > > zgirnius: > It is not his presence that is the danger, it is his *existence*. > Bella might or might not leave Tonks alone once she is no longer > pregnant, but little Teddy, once he is born, is someone who needs to > be 'pruned' from her family tree regardless. His family is already > associated with him. a_svirn: Well, perhaps Lupin hoped to prune Bellatrix first. That should have done the trick. > zgirnius: > Harry's most notable noble leaving of someone because of the danger > it would put her in, is his breakup with Ginny at the end of HBP. > Which, while it had not occured to me before, was quite possibly a > contributing factor to Harry's anger, though secondary to the issue > of abandoning a child, which is a sore point with Harry. a_svirn: And so he takes his frustration on Lupin who is doing the same very thing? > zgirnius: also > tries this speech on Ron and Hermione, who turn him down. Of course, > in all three of those cases, he tells the people in question what is > going on. My own impression of Lupin from that scene is that he makes > his decision without consulting Tonks, which is the source of my > problems. a_svirn: And do you remember Harry consulting Ginny? I remember him presenting her with a fait accompli. > zgirnius: > I can concoct in my mind a fanfic, which seems to me completely AU, > in which, before coming to Harry, Lupin confesses to Tonks that > despite his love for her and the baby, he worries about them and the > danger their association with him puts them in so very much. a_svirn: Well I don't see why it is so completely AU, since there is nothing in canon to contradict it. > zgirnius: And > Tonks is happy to know Lupin's recent moodiness does not mean he > loves her any less or does not want the baby, and also annoyed that > he might think this matters to her, and assures him that she married > him fully aware of the possible consequences, that the blame would be > hers as much as anyone's if anything went wrong, and the happiness he > has brought her means more to her than the risk. a_svirn: What an odd scenario. Welfare and safety of her child should jolly well matter to her. > Pippin: > IIRC, the point of Harry's conversation with Phineas was to show us that > Harry was rationalizing: he told himself that he was worried about the > danger to his friends, but he was more worried about being different > from them in a horrible and unique way. Now Harry perceives that > Lupin is doing the same thing. a_svirn: Now aren't you being unfair to Harry. The point of Harry's decision to leave No. 12 was that he thought himself "Voldemort's secret weapon" and consequently the danger to his nearest and dearest. Which is very similar to how Lupin saw himself. > Pippin: > Just as Harry forgot about Diary!Ginny, Lupin has forgotten that Harry > knows something about being treated as an outcast by his own > family and being viewed as a dangerous freak with criminal > propensities and powers he could not control. I think we can imagine > what it would have meant to Harry during those times to know that > he had a father who cared for him, even one who couldn't do anything > to help him. I think that gives Harry the right to state his point of > view, though it could have been done more tactfully. a_svirn: I think it would be a curiously skewed point of view. Harry's father, should he have lived wouldn't have been a danger for him. It was the other way round ? Harry was a very dangerous son to have. It was because Harry was a danger to his parents, his Godfather, etc. all those people were killed. And knowing first-handed what it's like to endanger life of your loved ones, Harry should have seen Lupin's point, not wallow in his past insecurities. a_svirn From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 15 17:33:08 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:33:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's offer (was Re: just how different? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180685 > > zgirnius: > In the fanfic I wrote with this premise, I had Draco show up with > Narcissa at the Dursleys and surrender to Harry. Not only because it > was fun to have Vernon react to strange wizards at his door, and to > have Cissy attempt to chat with Petunia, but because the one person who > knew for sure of the offer, was Harry. Potioncat: Oh, good idea. I'll look for that one. I wrote one where Snape sent them to Moody. >Zara > I think probably no one else knew. If Albus planned for no one to know > or suspect about Snape's loyalties, I think this would have been > diofficult to discuss in advance. But this is something Dumbledore may have believed could be done on short notice. Potioncat: Do you think DD still hoped at that moment to delay his death a bit longer, or do you think that if Draco had told someone the offer had been made afterwards, that someone in the Order would have acted on it? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jan 15 17:37:50 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:37:50 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180686 > zgirnius: > It is not his presence that is the danger, it is his *existence*. > Bella might or might not leave Tonks alone once she is no longer > pregnant, but little Teddy, once he is born, is someone who needs to > be 'pruned' from her family tree regardless. His family is already > associated with him. Magpie: I don't think it's so unreasonable for him to think that if he's left the family they'd have an easier time of it. It isn't all about Bellatrix hunting down Tonks and Remus is trying to take away Bellatrix's power to hurt Tonks and the child by what he's doing. Lupin knows he's already caused Tonks and the child this danger by marrying etc. I would imagine that's part of what gives him his desire to go out and fight that danger. Whether or not his leaving is going to immediately lessen the danger for Tonks and his baby I can see why he thinks that he can start to do something better *now* by separating himself from them and working to bring down Voldemort. His emotions don't only come down to trying to get out of responsibilty, and I don't really think it's a given that in a time like this obviously his most important responsibility is to sit at home in close physical proximity to his wife and child. Ultimately the book doesn't either since it seems happy to honor him as one of the fallen dead at the school--and show him wonderfully happy in the afterlife with Sirius Black and James (he's slipped Tonks' leash again!). > > Magpie: > > Far from being something that disgusts Harry, it's something Harry > > himself would do. He thought himself perfectly self-righteous when > he > > considered leaving Grimmauld Place when he thought he was possessed > in > > OotP and he made similar speeches in this book about not wanting to > > put other people in danger because they're with him. > > zgirnius: > He was not married to anyone at 12 GP, nor had he fathered a child > with anyone there. Magpie: But so what? Being married to someone or being someone's father doesn't change the basic idea of not wanting to put them in danger. If anything it would give you even more of a horror of putting them in harm's way. Lupin's situation is different (Harry's also worried about the damage Ginny does to his ability to fight) but I don't think the fact that he's married suddenly makes it irresponsible to consider leaving to make his family safer or to consider leaving to join the fight. That can be the right decision in some cases. zgirnius: > > Harry's most notable noble leaving of someone because of the danger > it would put her in, is his breakup with Ginny at the end of HBP. > Which, while it had not occured to me before, was quite possibly a > contributing factor to Harry's anger, though secondary to the issue > of abandoning a child, which is a sore point with Harry. He also > tries this speech on Ron and Hermione, who turn him down. Of course, > in all three of those cases, he tells the people in question what is > going on. My own impression of Lupin from that scene is that he makes > his decision without consulting Tonks, which is the source of my > problems. Magpie: And that's a perfectly fine source of problems--but it's not got anything to do with Lupin being a coward for preferring to act as a part of the Resistance movement rather than stay at home with his wife and wait for Harry, Ron and Hermione to do something. Not discussing it with Tonks, if he didn't discuss it with her (and we don't know that he didn't), is a different issue. Harry didn't "discuss" his decision with Ginny either, he just told her they were done and Ginny told him that's why she likes him so much. (Ginny's usually being in the emotional state or of the opinions Harry needs at any given moment is a great part of her attraction for him.) If Harry had been married to Ginny at the time, and had fathered a child with her already, she probably would have said the same thing: "That's why I love you Harry, because I know fighting Voldemort comes first. Me and the baby will be waiting when you come home!" Ginny's always been a hero groupie, after all. But Harry's logic in protecting Ginny has the same holes as the ones you see for Lupin above. He's already involved with her. Voldemort would already know he could use Ginny against him, even if he never does. But Harry still says he's "too dangerous" to have a girlfriend, and Ginny respects that. Everything about her character indicates to me that if she were married to him she'd see it as perfectly right that her man left them to hunt Horcruxes--because that's the way he is and that's his way of protecting them--while she stayed home with the baby. Women and children have been waving their men off to war for thousands of years. zgirnius: > This (noncanonical) Lupin seems to me the guy you are defending. > Heck, I admire that guy too. He just was not in evidence in "The > Bribe". Magpie: Canon doesn't tell us what went down between Lupin and Tonks in "The Bribe." Canonically Tonks seems to have different priorities than Ginny and might never have agreed Lupin should go. And one can imagine Lupin avoiding the confrontation and just leaving her a note for all we know. Or maybe he just, like Harry, announced he was doing it and went off, either with Tonks angry or weepy or with Tonks bravely supporting him like Ginny. Or perhaps they did discuss it. I don't remember if Harry asked anything about this. But none of this has anything to do with Lupin being a daredevil or trying to avoid his responsibilities or his offer to Harry being unreasonable or bad. It's only a problem in the way Lupin communicates or fails to communicate with his wife, which isn't what Harry yells about. Pippin: IIRC, the point of Harry's conversation with Phineas was to show us that Harry was rationalizing: he told himself that he was worried about the danger to his friends, but he was more worried about being different from them in a horrible and unique way. Now Harry perceives that Lupin is doing the same thing. Magpie: Harry *wasn't* different from them in a horrible and unique way, and he wasn't a danger to them, so the problem was taken care of for him. If he really had been Voldemort's weapon and Voldemort had been able to act through him things might have been different. Given the current climate Lupin's fears aren't totally irrational. So Harry shouldn't just assume his own projected issues tell the whole story. Lupin would hardly just now be dealing with being horrible in a unique way and different from other people--he probably can't ever remember feeling any differently at this point in his life. It's not that I'm arguing that Lupin was obviously absolutely right that he should leave Tonks, or that he was only being self- sacrificing and heroic here and couldn't be led by any of his own issues. I can totally get behind Lupin needing to be honest with himself and figure out when he's really taking rational precautions and where he's hiding behind old defense mechanismss. But I don't see why he'd be able to do that when all of his concerns- -including the practical ones--are dismissed by everyone. If Lupin is truly acting out of his own issues, those issues never come to the surface. It's this sort of thing that adds up to my general feeling that a big part of this guy is terrified of how kind of satisfying it is to imagine turning into a wolf and killing these people.:-) Pippin: Just as Harry forgot about Diary!Ginny, Lupin has forgotten that Harry knows something about being treated as an outcast by his own family and being viewed as a dangerous freak with criminal propensities and powers he could not control. Magpie: I don't think Lupin "forgot" this but that he naturally doesn't equate Harry's situation with his own because it's not the same. Other characters are quick to say they know what Lupin's situation is like and he should just do like they want him to do, when I just don't think they're really putting any effort into understanding his pov. Pippin: Lupin is not proposing to protect Harry in addition to protecting his child, or in order to protect his child from Voldemort. He's proposing that the child won't suffer by his absence, which is absurd. Magpie: Ironic that JKR then decides to randomly kill off both Lupin and Tonks--having Tonks run off even more heedless of her child having no parents--and then that child is part of the happy epilogue having had a life that shows nothing like Harry's suffering by the absence of his parents. Not that I think this means Teddy didn't miss anything by not having parents--of course he did. But he had a very different life than Harry did and in the end it looked like fighting Voldemort was considered an okay reason to put yourself in danger while your child is left behind with somebody else. As long as you did it on the author's terms. She wanted her war orphan. -m From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Tue Jan 15 18:32:13 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:32:13 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180687 > Magpie: > > Canon doesn't tell us what went down between Lupin and Tonks in "The Bribe." Canonically Tonks seems to have different priorities than Ginny and might never have agreed Lupin should go. And one can imagine Lupin avoiding the confrontation and just leaving her a note for all we know. Or maybe he just, like Harry, announced he was doing it and went off, either with Tonks angry or weepy or with Tonks bravely supporting him like Ginny. Or perhaps they did discuss it. I don't remember if Harry asked anything about this. Tiffany: I think that Lupin wouldn't want a confrontation in "The Bribe" based on what I've read, but that's strictly speculation on my part based on my knowledge of Lupin & Tonks in DH. I don't recall either if Harry asked about this or not, but if it was asked I'm sure it was an "off- the-page" occurence that we as readers will possibly not know about. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 18:39:22 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:39:22 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180688 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > I never got the sense that Voldemort could have succeeded as he > > did in the RW, so it wasn't even creepy in an "informing on real > > life" kind of way. > >>Pippin: > > Alla has answered in regard to Stalinist Russia but I'll add that > the same thing happened with Nazi Germany. People not directly > involved did not realize the scope of what was happening. > Betsy Hp: I'm fairly confident that if you were Jewish and/or a member of a resistance cell and/or living in the heart of your country (ie Berlin) you knew. Harry was all three and personally acquainted with all three. Look how much trouble JKR had to go through to get Harry *out* of the way: killing his owl and tucking him away in the woods. She purposefully arranged things to give Voldemort the least amount of creep-factor. Which is an odd choice for a story-teller, IMO. > >>Pippin: > > Both were freed from evil and slavery, which is what > > redemption means. > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > Hm, I'd say Snape died a slave, honestly. He certainly wasn't > > his own man. And I don't think Draco was ever really freed > > either. > >>Pippin: > Snape was pretending to be Voldemort's slave, and when his role > required him to die, he did, or so it seems. But you mean his > service to Dumbledore, don't you? > There seems to be this idea that voluntary service is a form of > slavery, which I don't understand. Are you imagining a completely > non-hierarchical society? Betsy Hp: I'd been imagining a thinker. Instead I got a man totally controlled by guilt without a thought towards what and why. I didn't feel like Snape volunteered for Dumbledore, instead he was an emotionally crippled puppet. So yes, no free man there, IMO. > >>Pippin: > > In what way is Draco not free? Betsy Hp: He's still a Slytherin living in a Gryffindor controlled world, as his nod towards Harry showed. (In this world, all the children know the Slytherin dolls are ugly.) So again, not a free man, IMO. The catch, the ugly truth, is that Harry is not free either. He's as firmly bound by the chains he sacrificed to maintain as those on the bottom. (It's why such societies inevitably erupt into violence, IMO. Such imbalance cannot hold.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > But, in a deeper sense, the WW is still embroiled in evil and > > slavery. > >>Pippin: > It is now being led by a man who not only believes in basic > rights for Muggles but actually knows enough about them to > successfully work among them. > Betsy Hp: I'm suspecting this is a Kingsly reference? That's not really canon is it? I thought this was just an interview bone JKR threw out at one point. In either case, since Harry's actions didn't even push the WW in the right direction (he really was all about restoring the status quo, I thought, making life comfortable for *him*) I'm not putting any stock into any actions Kingsly might or might not take at some future, non-existent to the series, date. > >>Pipppin: > Slavery still existed after the American Revolution, but I wouldn't > say there was no progress in human rights over the previous regime. Betsy Hp: True, but slavery had been discussed (tabled only so that the US could win the war) and movement was made (ditto women's rights, I believe). What Harry did was the equivalent of helping the red-coats prevail. Harry *restored* he didn't revolutionize. IMO, anyway. > >>Alla: > Please tell me if I am wrong, but you pretty much said yes to > Pippin's question that you wanted Snape and Draco to be coredeemers > with Harry, no? So that would be a fair summary to say that the > characters you wished to take central stage together with Harry did > not take the central stage ( although I thought Snape took it pretty > central, maybe not as central as Harry, but of course matter of > opinion). What does it have to do with merits of the books again? Betsy Hp: That JKR chose to not have Harry deal with the antagonists the series *had* been setting up, and instead tried to shoe-horn in two replacements that failed utterly, IMO. For six books, I'd say the Slytherin question was just that: the question. But the seventh book decided the real question was, just who is Dumbledore, anyway? I had never wondered, quite frankly. And though his story was semi-interesting, it had little to do with Harry or how Harry perceived himself. I mean, yes I'd have found the story *much* more interesting if Snape and Draco had played central roles (that rushed by chapter does not a central role make, IMO), and of course that's personal. But I also think it goes towards the merits of the book itself because JKR pulled a cheat, IMO. She failed to answer the question she'd asked. So her young hero ended up quite flat and childish and her story ended up... well, quite flat and childish. IMO, of course. Betsy Hp From falkeli at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 17:00:11 2008 From: falkeli at yahoo.com (hp_fan_2008) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:00:11 -0000 Subject: Explain this passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180689 potioncat: > I have to wonder again, if the Hat had offered Gryffindor to Severus, > if he would have taken it? Would Lily being there be enough, or would > James being there have been too much? Elihu: I think that Snape's and James's mutual disliking was something which developed over time. Just like Harry and Ron ended up liking Hermione, Snape could have ended up liking James. In stead, Snape spent his time making friends with the wrong kind of people, and while it took Lily nearly 5 years to end her love for Snape, James found it very easy to dislike him. If Snape had been sorted into Gryffindor, he probably would have made friends with the same kids as Lily, and his relationship with James would have probably ended up better. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 19:05:42 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:05:42 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180690 Magpie wrote: > But so what? Being married to someone or being someone's father > doesn't change the basic idea of not wanting to put them in danger. > If anything it would give you even more of a horror of putting them > in harm's way. Lupin's situation is different (Harry's also worried > about the damage Ginny does to his ability to fight) but I don't > think the fact that he's married suddenly makes it irresponsible to > consider leaving to make his family safer or to consider leaving to > join the fight. That can be the right decision in some cases. Carol responds: As Lupin himself admits, he put Tonks in danger by marrying her (before that, she was an Order member and the "brat" of a pure-blood mother and a Muggle-born father, but now she's the wife of a werewolf. To make matters worse, he has knowingly impregnated her, knowingly fathered a half-werewolf child who may become a werewolf himself. The child's very existence makes him a target, and as long as Tonks is pregnant with him, she's even more of a target than she would be as a werewolf's wife. So Lupin is supposed to undo his mistake and make things right by abandoning them both? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me, none whatever, any more than it makes sense to Harry. He is offering to go into unknown danger and "protect" three of-age wizards, one of whom has already defeated Voldemort twice (three times, if you count surviving an AK and vaporizing Voldemort through no effort of his own). It's not as if there were an actual battle to fight, as there is at Hogwarts later. Nor does he have any more knowledge than they do of "the magic many of us have never encountered or imagined" (his own words, DH Am. ed. 212). Just as Lupin tells Harry in PoA that he's no expert at fighting Dementors (PoA Am. ed. 189--BTW, do we ever see him casting a corporeal Patronus, or only silver light?), he's also no expert in the Dark Arts themselves (our resident expert on that topic is Snape). His expertise appears to lie with minor Dark creatures like Kappas and Grindylows, which Harry already knows how to deal with in the unlikely event that he's going to encounter one on his mission for Dumbledore. What spells can Lupin teach Harry that he doesn't already know? What could he have done to prevent them from being caught by Snatchers? He didn't know any more than Harry did that the name itself had been cursed, and Fenrir Greyback would have recognized him immediately. Setting aside the danger that his presence poses to them, not to mention the effect of his depressed spirits on their morale, especially with the Horcrux adding its malice to the mix (supposing they could have retrieved it without telling him what it was), what good could he have accomplished by accompanying them on their "advenutre"? It's Lupin himself, not Harry, who says "This isn't about danger or personal glory" *before* Harry has made his "daredevil" remark, suggesting to Harry, at least, that, yes, it is about exactly that. Nor does Lupin ever answer either Harry's question about James's opinion of Lupin's plan to abandon his wife and child or his question about how the new regime would regard a "half-werewolf" (DH 214), instead spluttering "How dare you?"--always the recourse of a person who feels insulted but has no other defense. Could Lupin have calmly and truthfully said, "James would have approved of my actions?" Probably not, since James stood by his wife and child, going into hiding with them rather than openly fighting Voldemort and died trying to protect them." Nope. Can't answer truthfully, so let's just get mad and splutter "How dare you?" (like Bellatrix when Harry besmirches the Dark Lord's name by calling him a Half-Blood). How about the new regime's attitude toward half-werewolves? Oops. Can't answer that one without harming his own case or uttering an obvious falsehood, either, so he ignores the question and turns on Harry. Lupin resorts to defensiveness, excuses, furniture-throwing, and spell-casting. Why? Because he's in the wrong and he knows it. Lupin does not make a case for why they need his help, nor does he say a word about doing what he can to fight Voldemort. *Later,* he fights in a battle against Death Eaters to make the WW a better place for his son, but at this point, the only emotion he feels toward his unborn child is a kind of fear and loathing--"What if it's like me?" Exactly how deserting that child and its mother, a la Tom Riddle Sr.--is supposed to help them, I don't know. We've already seen Tonks lose her Metamorphmagus powers. Now she's likely to lose her powers altogether, like Merope, because the man she loves won't stand by her. Harry has no choice but to leave the underage Ginny behind. Having her with him would increase her danger (as she tacitly acknowledges by accepting his decision). But Lupin does have a choice, and accompanying three of-age wizards to "protect" them rather than standing by the woman he married and the child he fathered is the wrong decision. He endangered Tonks by marrying her and Teddy by bringing him into existence, and since he can't undo those mistakes, he has a moral obligation to rectify them as best he can by protecting his family until the moment comes when he can openly and actively fight the enemy that menaces them. There is no point whatever in his joining HRH, increasing everyone's danger and unhappiness. By remaining with Tonks, he not only does his duty as a father but honors his obligation to love and cherish his wife (and enables her to love and cherish him, giving him the happiness and self-esteem that he lacks troughout the books). Lupin's conscience always bothers him when he's too weak to do the right thing (stop his friends from tormenting Severus, tell Dumbledore that Sirius is an Animagus, etc.). The only time we see him happy is after he's returned to Tonks. Why? Because for once ESW!Lupin had the moral courage to do the right thing. Carol, who thinks that in a battle between Bellatrix and Lupin, Bellatrix would win From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 19:22:15 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:22:15 -0000 Subject: Explain this passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180691 potioncat wrote: > > I have to wonder again, if the Hat had offered Gryffindor to Severus, if he would have taken it? Would Lily being there be enough, or would James being there have been too much? > > Elihu: > I think that Snape's and James's mutual disliking was something which developed over time. Just like Harry and Ron ended up liking Hermione, Snape could have ended up liking James. In stead, Snape spent his time making friends with the wrong kind of people, and while it took Lily nearly 5 years to end her love for Snape, James found it very easy to dislike him. If Snape had been sorted into Gryffindor, he probably would have made friends with the same kids as Lily, and his relationship with James would have probably ended up better. > Carol responds: The only way that would have been possible would have been if Severus and James had not met on the train and James had not immediately stigmatized Severus for wanting to be in Slytherin, the House that Severus associated with brains. By the time that short scene is over, James has tried to trip Severus, and either he or Sirius (Sirius, I think, but there's no attribution) has labeled Severus as "Snivellus" based solely on his name. Any chance for friendship or any willingness to be Sorted into Gryffindor to be with Lily was, IMO, destroyed by that encounter. If they'd never met, Severus might have chosen Gryffindor against his inclinations or been convinced by the Hat to try Ravenclaw, the House for brains. But James disliked him from the moment he announced his desire to be in Slytherin, and that was that. Carol, thinking that Dumbledore is right about Sorting too soon and thinking that first- and second-years should have the chance to know everyone in their year and meet with older students from all the Houses before they're Sorted From tubazrcool at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 20:19:56 2008 From: tubazrcool at yahoo.com (Heather Rivera) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:19:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Explain this passage Message-ID: <7612.9442.qm@web38507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180692 potioncat: > I have to wonder again, if the Hat had offered Gryffindor to > Severus, if he would have taken it? Would Lily being there be > enough, or would James being there have been too much? Elihu: I think that Snape's and James's mutual disliking was something which developed over time. If Snape had been sorted into Gryffindor, he probably would have made friends with the same kids as Lily, and his relationship with James would have probably ended up better. tubazrcool: I have to agree with Elihu. Snape did go into Slytherin, so naturally, he would have been around dark-minded people. Especially during those times, the people around whom one hung influenced them. I do believe had Severus been around the Gryffindors, esp. Lily, instead of the Slytherins, he would have been a different person. But, then the after effects of him being put into Gryffindor would have more than likely been detrimental to the series. Lily and James might not have married, Harry might not have been born, Voldemort would have taken over the ministry later on without fear of another "with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord" person coming along to destroy him, since Severus wouldn't have been eavesdropping at the inn during the time Trelawney was prophesying to Dumbledore. Many things wouldn't have happened and the series wouldn't have been the same. There had to have been a "Snape" in the series. tubazrcool From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jan 15 22:44:04 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:44:04 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180693 > Magpie wrote: > > > But so what? Being married to someone or being someone's father > > doesn't change the basic idea of not wanting to put them in danger. > > If anything it would give you even more of a horror of putting them > > in harm's way. Lupin's situation is different (Harry's also worried > > about the damage Ginny does to his ability to fight) but I don't > > think the fact that he's married suddenly makes it irresponsible to > > consider leaving to make his family safer or to consider leaving to > > join the fight. That can be the right decision in some cases. > > Carol responds: > > As Lupin himself admits, he put Tonks in danger by marrying her > (before that, she was an Order member and the "brat" of a pure- blood > mother and a Muggle-born father, but now she's the wife of a werewolf. > To make matters worse, he has knowingly impregnated her, knowingly > fathered a half-werewolf child who may become a werewolf himself. The > child's very existence makes him a target, and as long as Tonks is > pregnant with him, she's even more of a target than she would be as a > werewolf's wife. So Lupin is supposed to undo his mistake and make > things right by abandoning them both? Sorry, but that makes no sense > to me, none whatever, any more than it makes sense to Harry. Magpie: ::shrug:: Makes sense to me. Lupin is dealing with the same problem he feared before--he thought it was a bad idea to get married and have a child, while many non-werewolves thought Lupin should have a family. Lupin is still the only person who says it's bringing them down; he brought that on himself, he seems to accept that. That's why he feels so guilty about it and is kicking himself for doing it. But he's not simply "abandoning" them. He saying he's leaving them because he thinks that's better for them while he will go meet the danger that's coming anyway. The difference between Lupin being at home and not being at home doesn't seem all that great--I could imagine the family being a little safer *or* a little more in danger with him there. They're not just being left to their own devices either way. That said, of course this is also about Lupin's own feelings. *He* can't stand being with them and feeling like he's ruined lives. And that's all about him, and one is free to think his solution is wrong- -but I don't find those feelings hard to understand and am surprised Harry would. If he'd talked about understanding what it's like to bring danger and death upon the people you love that would have been a different scene. Carol: > He is offering to go into unknown danger and "protect" three of-age > wizards, one of whom has already defeated Voldemort twice (three > times, if you count surviving an AK and vaporizing Voldemort through > no effort of his own). It's not as if there were an actual battle to > fight, as there is at Hogwarts later. Magpie: Harry's defeats of Voldemort weren't down to Harry being indestructible and not needing any help. Sometimes help from others was the deciding factor (in their last battle before this scene I believe Harry's wand had to grow a brain and save him). Sure there's no actual battle yet, but there are things to be done and I understand Lupin wanting to feel like he's doing something to help his family rather than sitting around being the guy that got them into danger and now it's just his duty to suffer the guilt and wait. I don't think that's exactly being a daredevil. It could be self- hatred, that if it's going to come down he ought to die fighting it. Or it could be a feeling this is the right thing to do. Even if one considers this a really bad idea, I don't think the man's abandoning his family to have fun. Even if it is down to Lupin's not believing anybody could ever be lucky to have him around (which is really sad) I doubt he'd really snap out of that just because somebody told him he was a shameful coward who only cared about himself. That might just feed into the self-hatred. Carol: > It's Lupin himself, not Harry, who says "This isn't about danger or > personal glory" *before* Harry has made his "daredevil" remark, > suggesting to Harry, at least, that, yes, it is about exactly that. Magpie: Lupin isn't exactly known for chasing after personal glory. That's something Harry understands. Lupin could have just as easily flung the same accusation at Harry "I'm the Chosen One and Dumbledore Liked Me Best and I Only Work With My Two Best Friends" Potter. Carol: > Nor does Lupin ever answer either Harry's question about James's > opinion of Lupin's plan to abandon his wife and child or his question > about how the new regime would regard a "half-werewolf" (DH 214), > instead spluttering "How dare you?"--always the recourse of a person > who feels insulted but has no other defense. Magpie: If Lupin already feels guilty about putting his family in danger, it's not surprising he'd be taken aback by the idea that what he really wants is a way to put them in more danger. I imagine Harry would have answered the same way if somebody had told him that his father ought to be condemned for defying Voldemort--if he hadn't been so concerned with personal glory by defying Voldemort he wouldn't have put his family in danger. Hell, Harry's pretty forgiving of Sirius' trip to the MoM--I don't think he believes that was just Sirius chasing glory and wanting to die heroically. Or how about Harry himself--how would he react to the charge that he went to the MoM himself because he really he wanted the personal glory and didn't care that it put his friends in danger, given that we know he felt guilty about putting them in danger? I think he might respond with an inarticulate, "How dare you...!" too. Carol: > Could Lupin have calmly and truthfully said, "James would have > approved of my actions?" Probably not, since James stood by his wife > and child, going into hiding with them rather than openly fighting > Voldemort and died trying to protect them." Nope. Magpie: James wasn't the one drawing Voldemort to his house, Harry was. James stayed with Harry--iow, he stayed with the danger. If James were the one Voldemort were after, he probably wouldn't have been staying with him. He would have been openly fighting Voldemort like a mad thing--or not even fighting, just saying "I'm over here!" to get his attention away from Harry. So yeah, I think James might have understood and even approved of Lupin's actions if given that hypothetical scenario. Or at least he might have done the same thing himself. But this isn't really about James. Lupin's not claiming to be there because he owes it to James, that's just something he throws in as an extra thing he's doing good. He's really there because *he* hates himself for the situation he feels he's caused, he fears having passed on his own curse and he wants to be part of the fight against Voldemort--which ties back to the same danger and curse. Frankly, what James would or wouldn't think doesn't really matter. The guy's been dead from his own mistakes for years now. This is the time for other people to make theirs. Harry doesn't even much care what James thinks, he's speaking for himself. Carol: How about the new regime's attitude toward > half-werewolves? Oops. Can't answer that one without harming his own > case or uttering an obvious falsehood, either, so he ignores the > question and turns on Harry. Lupin resorts to defensiveness, excuses, > furniture-throwing, and spell-casting. Why? Because he's in the wrong > and he knows it. Magpie: I don't think it harms his case much. It's a reason to do nothing-- which appears to be a popular choice in the WW but I don't hold it against Lupin that he's not totally embracing it. The difference between Lupin the werewolf married to Andromeda's daughter and Lupin the Order member (which he already is) doing something for the Resistance somewhere while married to Andromeda's daughter doesn't seem enough to be a deal-breaker for me. Given how little anybody's doing I must respect Lupin's impulse to be proactive here for any reason. Carol: > Lupin does not make a case for why they need his help, nor does he say > a word about doing what he can to fight Voldemort. Magpie: Nor does he need to, imo. He's an adult, and a competent wizard, and committed to bringing down Voldemort. It's insane that more people aren't volunteering to do this instead of waiting around for Harry to do something (with the occasional secret practical joke that mildly inconveniences a DE that they can smirk about over the water cooler). He doesn't need to have some special power to vanquish Voldemort. He's competent, intelligent and willing. Between him and Ron on this journey I'd say Lupin seems the more valuable. Carol: *Later,* he fights > in a battle against Death Eaters to make the WW a better place for his > son, but at this point, the only emotion he feels toward his unborn > child is a kind of fear and loathing--"What if it's like me?" Exactly > how deserting that child and its mother, a la Tom Riddle Sr.--is > supposed to help them, I don't know. We've already seen Tonks lose her > Metamorphmagus powers. Now she's likely to lose her powers altogether, > like Merope, because the man she loves won't stand by her. Magpie: Except he's not leaving his child like Tom Riddle Sr. at all. He's believes he's thinking about exactly this wife and child. And his wife, even if she gets mopy again, has a support system so the child will not wind up in an orphanage and Tonks won't be starving in the street (there's something bizarre at how Tonks started out the independent young female auror and wound up being most often used as a parallel to...Merope Gaunt). Tom Riddle ran away traumatized and never left his house again. Lupin is going to fight something that directly threatens his son. I just don't see how it can just be considered abandonment when the fight is tied up with the danger. He's fighting for the very civil rights for his son he feels guilty about having taken away from him by fathering him. If Lupin had gone with Harry and died I wouldn't be surprised if Teddy group up thinking up a great hero for that. Carol: > Harry has no choice but to leave the underage Ginny behind. Having her > with him would increase her danger (as she tacitly acknowledges by > accepting his decision). Magpie: Harry's situation and Lupin's are different, sure (though I don't think her age matters that much). But Ginny doesn't just tacitly admit that having her with him would increase the danger, she proudly compliments him for being the kind of guy who has to be fighting Voldemort. She's drawn to Harry because he's not the guy who is going to sit at home waiting for somebody else to kill Voldemort. The main difference seems to be that it's understood Harry and Lupin are supposed to be fulfilling different roles for their girlfriends--Harry's the action hero who plays by his own rules and comes home to his reward; Lupin's the long-suffering man to be loved into happiness and health. Carol: But Lupin does have a choice, and > accompanying three of-age wizards to "protect" them rather than > standing by the woman he married and the child he fathered is the > wrong decision. He endangered Tonks by marrying her and Teddy by > bringing him into existence, and since he can't undo those mistakes, > he has a moral obligation to rectify them as best he can by protecting > his family until the moment comes when he can openly and actively > fight the enemy that menaces them. Magpie: He's not denying he has a moral obligation to rectify the danger he put them in by caving into the original pressure to marry Tonks. He has a different idea on how to discharge that duty, and I can see it both ways. You think he ought to sit with them and hope Harry's making some progress (which he isn't most of the time) until the time when somebody in his position is officially supposed to fight. He thinks he ought not to be married or wait for the danger to come to his family's door. Since there really isn't some official signal for a guy in Lupin's position, I think a case can be made on both sides. I mean, why would one assume there would be some moment when he can openly and actively fight if he can't now? Why does it occur at Hogwarts? What if it never came? Voldemort's already taken over the country. How long is one supposed to keep one's head down? It was really only author's machinations that made people somehow able to do nothing and also all become war heroes. Carol: There is no point whatever in his > joining HRH, increasing everyone's danger and unhappiness. By > remaining with Tonks, he not only does his duty as a father but honors > his obligation to love and cherish his wife (and enables her to love > and cherish him, giving him the happiness and self-esteem that he > lacks troughout the books). Magpie: I can't agree there's no point. I think every adult in the Order (and not in the Order) ought to be working on this. I don't think the job of cherishing his wife and building up his self-esteem is more obviously important than the Dark Lord having taken over his small country. I think he's attempting to build up his self-esteem by joining the fight. Obviously what Harry says turns out to be the answer to Lupin's problems, but that made the whole storyline incredibly pointless as far as I could see. Carol: > Lupin's conscience always bothers him when he's too weak to do the > right thing (stop his friends from tormenting Severus, tell Dumbledore > that Sirius is an Animagus, etc.). The only time we see him happy is > after he's returned to Tonks. Why? Because for once ESW!Lupin had the > moral courage to do the right thing. Magpie: Well, Lupin's done what *you* think is the right thing, and maybe what the author thinks is the right thing, but an equally strong case could be made for Lupin doing the right thing by fighting. Everybody just assumes that being with Tonks (either in HBP or DH) is what Lupin really thinks is the right thing deep down when it could just as easily be that staying with her is what he thinks is wrong and leaving her was the one time he screwed up his courage to do right. That was the thing that was his own idea, after all. That's the one place in canon where he's going *against* what his friends want him to do. Going back to Tonks was Harry's order, and he used all the usual things that work with Lupin to make him do it: he shamed him, rejected him, and witheld friendship from him until he complied and like a good wolf told Harry he was right. Maybe Lupin just gave up and agreed to stick his nose back in the book rather than get involved with a fight he felt he ought to join because that's the way to stay in the Marauders. Lupin's being happy doesn't mean he's stood up to his friends--the happiest times of his life were when he was overriding his own sense of right and wrong regarding his illness and basking in the companionship of friends. > Carol, who thinks that in a battle between Bellatrix and Lupin, > Bellatrix would win Magpie: Maybe, maybe not. If Lupin was in werewolf form, I think she might be toast. But if Lupin's so useless in a fight maybe he'd have been more help hunting for Horcruxes rather than staying home to protect his family. It's a bit odd to have the whole country taken overnight and then hold it against one of the few adults joining up to fight and saying his real place is at home loving his wife and letting her love him--kind of turns all those WWII love songs on their heads. Isn't domestic happiness more usually what's sacrificed in wartime? In the WW it almost seems like when people spend the most time at home. Even if the guy was abandoning Tonks because he wanted to sleep with other women and hated kids I'd seriously consider accepting his help. -m From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 00:06:12 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:06:12 -0000 Subject: Explain this passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180694 > > Carol, noting that both Harry and Ron regarded the Half-Blood Prince > > as a genius (too bad he couldn't have been their contemporary and > > their friend) > > > Potioncat: > Interesting isn't it, that these two Gryffindor boys liked this > Slytherin?--or what they knew of him. They didn't find the magic to > be "dark" or horrible. It reminds me again of the excuse given that > James didn't like Severus because Severus was into Dark Magic. The > real issue was that James disliked Severus because of a Slytherin > bias. > > I have to wonder again, if the Hat had offered Gryffindor to Severus, > if he would have taken it? Would Lily being there be enough, or would > James being there have been too much? > > Potioncat Montavilla47 I don't think James would have been that big a factor for Severus. He had barely met the kid, and it wasn't like having people dislike him instantly was such a rare experience for little Sev, was it? As for whether Lily would have been enough... it would be interesting (and give an alternate explanation to the reason I think Snape looked "stricken" at Dumbledore's sorting-too-soon comment)* if Severus had been given a choice by the hat to join the House his friend was in and he rejected it. I've always assumed that Severus, having read "Hogwarts: A History" had correctly associated Gryffindor with "might makes right" and bullies. Having lived with his parents, he would naturally reject being sorted into a House that would either trap him every night with an entire dorm of bulllies--in which case he would likely either be continually victimized, or else develop his own latent bully tendencies. Smart child, that Severus. Mind you, it might have been a big boost to the Order had he gone through Gryffindor to become one of Dumbledore's champions. On the other hand, he might have become even more of a bully than he did--with the added kick of smug self-righteousness. Montavilla47 * My interpretation of his look, is, of course, that he's appalled that Dumbledore is dissing Slytherin to his face. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 00:47:54 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:47:54 -0000 Subject: Lupin's behavior (Was: CHAPDISC: DH11, The Bribe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180695 > Pippin: > IIRC, the point of Harry's conversation with Phineas was to show us that > Harry was rationalizing: he told himself that he was worried about the > danger to his friends, but he was more worried about being different > from them in a horrible and unique way. Now Harry perceives that > Lupin is doing the same thing. Montavilla47: But thing that Harry was worried about wasn't an actual thing. He may be a bit different from his friends, what with his soul- connection to Voldemort and the prophecy (which he didn't know about at the time), but those aren't real differences. Werewolfish *is* a real difference. It's a disease which, at best, causes you to undergo a horribly painful transformation every month, and to worry that (because you have absolutely no control after you transform) you will infect other people. It is so horrifying a condition that most other wizards will shun you, and it is almost impossible to hold down a job if you have it. The WW doesn't seem likely to issue disability checks, and, as we know, the Ministry doesn't feel the need to include Wolfsbane Potion in any WW health plan. The *only* break that Lupin ever got was that he was able to attend school. Sometimes I feel like that puts him in the position Eliza Doolittle finds herself in after the ball in Pygmalion (or My Fair Lady, if you prefer). She laments that, without money or connections, she isn't fit to be a lady, but with her world opened up by learning to speak, she isn't fit to be anything else, either. Had Lupin never been educated, he would truly belong with that pack of werewolves he's running with in HBP. But, having been treated as a fully human wizard for seven years, he could be content as one again. It seems mean to keep dumping stuff on Dumbledore, but I feel like he treats Lupin very badly throughout the series. I know he's the only person who believes in Lupin, but--as far as we can see in the series, he really puts Lupin in some awkward places. And when he doesn't need Lupin, he apparently drops the guy completely. Pippin: > Just as Harry forgot about Diary!Ginny, Lupin has forgotten that Harry > knows something about being treated as an outcast by his own > family and being viewed as a dangerous freak with criminal > propensities and powers he could not control. Montavilla47: To be fair, Lupin may not know that Harry felt like an outcast. Harry wasn't exactly talking about his feelings to Lupin during OotP--or any time after PoA. Had Harry come to him with that feeling, Lupin might have been able to pass along some well-needed advice or commiseration. Pippin: >I think we can imagine > what it would have meant to Harry during those times to know that > he had a father who cared for him, even one who couldn't do anything > to help him. I think that gives Harry the right to state his point of > view, though it could have been done more tactfully. But then I'm three > times his age. Montavilla47: But Harry *did* have a father-figure who cared for him at that time. Harry's "outcast" feelings took place when Sirius was still alive. Harry wrote to Sirius about stuff that was bothering him in GoF, and he told Sirius about feeling out of control in OotP. When Sirius was alive, it would have been inappropriate for Lupin to try to be fatherly with Harry. I know many of us were hoping Lupin would step up after Sirius died (especially since Lupin was being very avuncular during OotP), but Harry didn't seem to miss him in HBP, probably because he could bask in the greater light of Dumbledore's attention. Pippin: > Anyway the idea that if Lupin forgets that he is a father, the WW > will conveniently forget that Tonks was his wife and the child is > his seems fallacious on the order of a kid hiding his eyes and > supposing it makes him invisible. > > Tonks didn't keep her marriage a secret. What's she supposed to do, > obliviate everyone who can count to nine? > > Lupin is not proposing to protect Harry in addition to protecting > his child, or in order to protect his child from Voldemort. He's > proposing that the child won't suffer by his absence, which is absurd. Montavilla47: I don't really disagree with anything here, but I did want to comment on how strongly people have been reacting to Lupin's offer/neglect of Tonks. I suppose it's because there's such a Good War vibe to the series that I don't find it so egregious for Lupin to volunteer for Operation Harry instead of staying home to sit with Tonks. After all, in World War II, millions of men signed up as soon as they could to fight in dangerous battles, leaving behind sweethearts and wives--many of whom were *hoping* they were pregnant. And I agree that there's not much difference between Lupin offering to help the Trio in September and showing up in May for the big showdown. Except that in one case, Harry gets mad and starts insulting the man, and in the other, he feels happy that Lupin is there to help. So, I'm left wondering if this strong reaction is connected to our feeling let down by Lupin. I see two reasons why we might feel this way: 1. We wanted Lupin to step up as a surrogate father in HBP, but instead, he seemed pre-occupied by his mission and the feelings it was stirring up in him. (And the hidden turmoil of his former relationship with Tonks.) 2. His refusal to cheer up after his marriage robbed us of the happily-ever-after ending to his romance with Tonks. She certainly did her part by showing up all pink-haired to Dumbledore's funeral, but he acts like a bad guest at his own surprise birthday party--sulking in the corner instead of laughing and playing Pinata with everyone else. Of course, this is all just speculation on my part. It may be that Lupin is just the world's biggest pill. Still, I find it curious.... And somewhat refreshing that we're so riled up over this minor subplot. Montavilla47 From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 01:16:07 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:16:07 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180696 > > >>Pippin: > > It is now being led by a man who not only believes in basic > > rights for Muggles but actually knows enough about them to > > successfully work among them. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I'm suspecting this is a Kingsly reference? That's not really canon > is it? I thought this was just an interview bone JKR threw out at > one point. In either case, since Harry's actions didn't even push > the WW in the right direction (he really was all about restoring the > status quo, I thought, making life comfortable for *him*) I'm not > putting any stock into any actions Kingsly might or might not take at > some future, non-existent to the series, date. Montavilla47: I think what Pippin is referring to is the Muggle Minister's protest when he's informed that Shacklebolt is a Wizard. He cries out that Shacklebolt is the most competent person in the office. > > >>Pipppin: > > Slavery still existed after the American Revolution, but I wouldn't > > say there was no progress in human rights over the previous regime. > > Betsy Hp: > True, but slavery had been discussed (tabled only so that the US > could win the war) and movement was made (ditto women's rights, I > believe). What Harry did was the equivalent of helping the red-coats > prevail. Harry *restored* he didn't revolutionize. IMO, anyway. Montavilla47: Heh. What I was going to say was this: Slavery did still exist after the American Revolution. As Betsy says, it was discussed and tabled. But the story isn't just that "progress was made." What happened was that the difference of feeling over slavery was a major reason (if not *the* major reason) for the Civil War 87 years later. Some of the states relied on slavery, other states officially banned the practice. The issue became so divisive that, by the 1840-50s, states could only be added to the union in pairs, with one "slave" state preserving the balance of power in the Senate with one "non-slave" state. It took a huge, violent Civil War, complete with terrorism, atrocities, and casualties that topped 30,000 in a single day, to finally end official slavery in the U.S. Montavilla47 From starview316 at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 16 04:32:13 2008 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 04:32:13 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180697 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > > > I never got the sense that Voldemort could have succeeded as he > > > did in the RW, so it wasn't even creepy in an "informing on real > > > life" kind of way. > > > >>Pippin: > > > > Alla has answered in regard to Stalinist Russia but I'll add that > > the same thing happened with Nazi Germany. People not directly > > involved did not realize the scope of what was happening. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I'm fairly confident that if you were Jewish and/or a member of a > resistance cell and/or living in the heart of your country (ie > Berlin) you knew. Harry was all three and personally acquainted with > all three. Look how much trouble JKR had to go through to get Harry > *out* of the way: killing his owl and tucking him away in the woods. > She purposefully arranged things to give Voldemort the least amount > of creep-factor. Which is an odd choice for a story-teller, IMO. > > > >>Pippin: > > > Both were freed from evil and slavery, which is what > > > redemption means. > > > > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > Hm, I'd say Snape died a slave, honestly. He certainly wasn't > > > his own man. And I don't think Draco was ever really freed > > > either. > > > >>Pippin: > > Snape was pretending to be Voldemort's slave, and when his role > > required him to die, he did, or so it seems. But you mean his > > service to Dumbledore, don't you? > > There seems to be this idea that voluntary service is a form of > > slavery, which I don't understand. Are you imagining a completely > > non-hierarchical society? > > Betsy Hp: > I'd been imagining a thinker. Instead I got a man totally controlled > by guilt without a thought towards what and why. I didn't feel like > Snape volunteered for Dumbledore, instead he was an emotionally > crippled puppet. So yes, no free man there, IMO. Amy: Even if you assume that Snape was enslaved by Dumbledore due to his guilt, it's still his OWN guilt. Dumbledore definitely played on it, but all the guilt trips in the world wouldn't have made a difference had Snape not made the voluntary (if subconscious) decision to feel guilty over the death of someone close to him. It could be argued that neither love or guilt are voluntary emotions, but I'd say they must be on some level (I mean, Bellatrix for example, is able to put feelings of guilt aside, so is Dumbledore). Either way, if Snape is enslaved by anything, it's by his own emotions. Which is certainly not a traditional description of slavery, especially in political terms. He's enslaved by himself. It's crippling, yeah, but I don't see why, in political terms, he wouldn't be seen as a free man. > >>Pipppin: > > Slavery still existed after the American Revolution, but I wouldn't > > say there was no progress in human rights over the previous regime. > > Betsy Hp: > True, but slavery had been discussed (tabled only so that the US > could win the war) and movement was made (ditto women's rights, I > believe). What Harry did was the equivalent of helping the red- coats > prevail. Harry *restored* he didn't revolutionize. IMO, anyway. > Amy: I do agree with your final point, though I think that's largely because I'm one of those who don't really see the American Revolution as a "revolution", but rather as a rebellion. I mean, yeah they *talked* about changing major social structures (note that these sorts of talks occurred even in the HP series, even if it was only amongst 14 year old children), but not that much changed beyond their own liberation from Britain (which wasn't much of a social-structure thing). Arguably, the American Revolution occured primarily to preserve (or "restore") the way of life colonists had gotten used to before the British decided they should keep a closer eye on their colonies. Any progress made was slight. Wars like that (and IMO, the Voldemort-wars) always call to mind large social changes, but these social changes rarely occur during these wars, or even (in the case of the American Revolution) as a direct result of the wars. Wars don't change things, people do; so I agree with the fact that the HP-war itself didn't change much. It was a rebellion, if anything. Seeing as the war is really the only thing concretely covered in the books, then we didn't see a lot of social changes happening. Progress usually happens officially after wars -- why assume that it wouldn't have in the HP-war, just because we aren't shown this? Amy From marion11111 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 04:57:31 2008 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 04:57:31 -0000 Subject: just how different? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180698 > > bboyminn: > > There are more differences in the earlier books in the series. > In the last book or two there were very few changes. Some > changes are for terminology, and others are editing decision > that are different between the UK publisher and the US > publisher. Though even those differences are so minor you > would only see them if you compared side by side. > > As an example, in I believe the 6th book, Fred says 'keep > your pecker up' which has a completely different meaning > in the USA. In the UK, it mean take heart or keep your > spirits up. I'm drawing a blank on what the equivalent line > says in the UK edition. > marion11111: Other examples of unintentional humor are the references to pot plants in the UK version and the Weasley twins selling hooter-shaped objects which is almost as funny to Americans as the pecker statement. After the first movie came out, the remaining books stopped being changed so much. I suppose the editors figured American kids would now know what a jumper or bogey was. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Wed Jan 16 06:22:05 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:22:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's offer (was Re: just how different? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180699 > Potioncat: > > Do you think DD still hoped at that moment to delay his death a bit longer, or do you think that if Draco had told someone the offer had been made afterwards, that someone in the Order would have acted on it? Tiffany: I think DD was hoping to delay his death a bit longer based on what I've read so far. I can't rule out a "glad to get it over with" feeling also because a natural reaction to dying is to "get it over with" feel sometimes. I'm sure that someone in the Order would've acted on it, but can't speculate as to who because there's a lot of names there. From klewellen at shellworld.net Wed Jan 16 05:28:26 2008 From: klewellen at shellworld.net (Karen Lewellen) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:28:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: just how different? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180700 >> bboyminn: >> There are more differences in the earlier books in the series. >> In the last book or two there were very few changes. Some >> changes are for terminology, and others are editing decision >> that are different between the UK publisher and the US >> publisher. What about the Canadian ones? These are the focus of my question, not the American editions. Karen From falkeli at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 06:52:11 2008 From: falkeli at yahoo.com (hp_fan_2008) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:52:11 -0000 Subject: Wizarding genetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180701 catlady: > Listies used to suggest that the wizarding folk had a baby boom > after the first defeat of LV. A wizarding baby boom without a > simultaneous wizarding death boom will result in an unusually > large number of Squibs, another result that the DEs didn't want. > But it's only superstition that makes the wizarding folk think > that Squibs are more likely than any other mm to have Squib > children. falkeli: I find it hard to believe that there were only 40 wizard/witch deaths during September 1979 - August 1980. Many of the students in Harry's year do have wizard/witch ancestry - so there doesn't seem to have been a big muggle-born batch that year. In addition, this theory predicts that 3 years below Harry (Dennis Creevey's year) there shouldn't be any muggle-borns, as this would have been when the babies of the baby boom would be born. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 16 16:25:19 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:25:19 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's offer (was Re: just how different? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180702 > Potioncat: > Now that you mention it... > HBP left many of us wondering whether Snape and DD had some plan, > whether DD was really dead, whether Snape was continuing his role as > spy...on and on. McGonagall, Lupin, Tonks had no idea, but surely > someone knew DD's plan. > > We will discover in DH that no one knew anything. Pippin: Actually there was one person who knew about DD's plan to save Draco and Narcissa: Harry. Presumably Dumbledore's portrait would know as well. If there had been a little more time, Draco and Harry could have hidden under the cloak before the other DE's and/or Snape arrived. Perhaps Draco could have sacrificed a finger to prove he was "dead". Dumbledore had given Lupin and Moody instructions to trust Harry, so Harry should have been believed if he said Dumbledore wanted Draco and Narcissa protected. The portrait would have backed him up. It could also have arranged a substitute for Snape's part of the plan if Snape had failed. No one knew every aspect of Dumbledore's plan but I think each part was known to somebody, as well as the portrait. Pippin From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 16 18:02:43 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:02:43 -0000 Subject: just how different? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180703 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Karen Lewellen wrote: > bboyminn: > >> There are more differences in the earlier books in the series. > >> In the last book or two there were very few changes. Some > >> changes are for terminology, and others are editing decision > >> that are different between the UK publisher and the US > >> publisher. > Karen: > What about the Canadian ones? These are the focus of my question, > not the American editions. Geoff: I seem to recall that the Canadian editions are identical to the UK editions. This came up when the discussion arose - probably a couple of years back - over the variant readings of Dumbledore's offer to Draco on the Tower in HBP. From potterfan220 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 19:02:40 2008 From: potterfan220 at yahoo.com (potterfan220) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:02:40 -0000 Subject: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180704 Steve wrote: > ..(SNIP SNIP SNIP)..Snape told Voldemort about the Prophecy, > though, according to the books, Snape only heard the first > part of the Prophecy. > > Regardless of what the /correct/ interpretation of the > Prophecy was, Voldemort gathered the information and made > his choices, and those choices /created/ a correct > interpretation of the Prophecy. In a sense, Voldemort's own > actions made it a self-fulfilling Prophecy... >>> potterfan220: Voldemort did choose to make it a self-fulfilling Prophecy. He chose to believe that a boy was to be born that could defeat him. He chose to act on Snape's recollection of half a prophecy. He chose to believe that his secrets would stay hidden. He gave Harry everything he needed to defeat him. Harry chose to use the information he was given and was willing to die because of it. Voldemort brought about his own death by not thinking there were people out there that would be able to defeat him. From potterfan220 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 19:17:37 2008 From: potterfan220 at yahoo.com (potterfan220) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:17:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's offer (was Re: just how different? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180705 > Pippin: > Actually there was one person who knew about DD's plan to > save Draco and Narcissa: Harry. Presumably Dumbledore's > portrait would know as well. > > If there had been a little more time, Draco and Harry > could have hidden under the cloak before the other DE's > and/or Snape arrived. Perhaps Draco could have sacrificed > a finger to prove he was "dead". Dumbledore had given > Lupin and Moody instructions to trust Harry, so Harry > should have been believed if he said Dumbledore wanted > Draco and Narcissa protected. The portrait would have > backed him up. It could also have arranged a substitute > for Snape's part of the plan if Snape had failed. > > No one knew every aspect of Dumbledore's plan but I think > each part was known to somebody, as well as the portrait. potterfan220: There was a reason no one else knew about the plan. Snape needed to play the spy without anyone knowing. If he did not do things the way he did he would have been discovered. Anyone else knowing would have been dangerous. Dumbledore was not asking Snape to save his life, he was asking him to remember his promise to kill him. The fact that Snape was still trying to teach Harry after he killed Dumbledore that should have let everyone know that he was still playing the spy. Harry would not have used his knowledge about Draco and Narcissa until he had some proof from them that they were against Voldemort though he felt sorry for Draco and the situation he was in, he would have expected Draco to ask for help and until that happened he would not have done anything to help them. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 21:17:31 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:17:31 -0000 Subject: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180706 Steve wrote: > > ..(SNIP SNIP SNIP)..Snape told Voldemort about the Prophecy, though, according to the books, Snape only heard the first part of the Prophecy. > > > > Regardless of what the /correct/ interpretation of the Prophecy was, Voldemort gathered the information and made his choices, and those choices /created/ a correct interpretation of the Prophecy. In a sense, Voldemort's own actions made it a self-fulfilling Prophecy... >>> > > > potterfan220: > Voldemort did choose to make it a self-fulfilling Prophecy. He chose to believe that a boy was to be born that could defeat him. He chose to act on Snape's recollection of half a prophecy. He chose to believe that his secrets would stay hidden. He gave Harry everything he needed to defeat him. Harry chose to use the information he was given and was willing to die because of it. Voldemort brought about his own death by not thinking there were people out there that would be able to defeat him. > Carol responds: One small correction. Voldemort chose to act on the Prophecy in an attempt to thwart it. He did not (deliberately) choose to make it self-fulfilling. But, yes. He did choose to act, and he did choose the boy he thought would be the greater threat. (JKR never stated that he would also have gone after Neville had he succeeded in killing Harry, but certainly it would have been in character for him to do so.) He chose to break his promise to young Snape by killing Lily, accidentally activating the ancient magic and giving Harry some of his own powers in the process--certainly not something he chose to do but, nevertheless, a consequence of those other choices. Had he chosen to ignore Severus Snape's information, dismissing prophecies as hokum and trusting in his Horcruxes to protect him, the Prophecy would have gone unfulfilled. (Too bad Voldemort never studied the mythology and literature of ancient Greece.) So, in that sense, the Prophecy became self-fulfilling the moment he acted on it. But had he kept his word to Snape and spared Lily (Stunning her, if necessary, to get her out of the way, rather than killing her), he would have succeeded in thwarting the Prophecy, killing the one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord. Instead, he failed to kill Harry and made him his "equal" in the sense of giving him the very powers he needed (chiefly the scar connection and, arguably, the soul bit itself, but also Parseltongue) to defeat the Dark Lord. If by "self-fulfilling prophecy" we mean that Voldemort himself created "the one with the power" to defeat him, then, yes, Voldemort's own actions, his choices, made it into the accurate prediction of the future that it turned out to be (leaving out "neither can live while the other survives," which doesn't mean what JKR thinks it means). Carol, imagining Inigo Montoya saying to JKR, "I do not think that line means what you think it means" From s_ings at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 21:47:54 2008 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:47:54 -0000 Subject: List Member Birthday Greetings Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180707 Our HPFGU Birthday Elf has resumed posting celebratory greetings over on OTC. If you would like to have your special day included, please email the Birthday Elf at s_ings @ yahoo.com (without the spaces). Please remember that greetings are posted on the OTC list and not here, so it's a good idea to make sure you're subscribed to that list if you wish to post responses to your birthday wishes. OTC is found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/ You can also add your own information to the database, which can be located by clicking the 'Database' link on the left side of the Main list home page. Please make sure to format your birthdate correctly with month preceding date (MM/DD). That way it ends up in the right place and I can start the party at the right time! If you need assistance, feel free to email me. Please do NOT post responses here on Main, but take advantage of having the ear of the Birthday Elf herself, via her inbox, to make sure your information is received (if you don't want to enter your own information). Please include your name (real or nickname), date of birth (month and date), and an email address where list members can send off-list greetings if they wish to do so. Come and join the fun! Sheryll aka The Birthday Elf From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 23:49:18 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:49:18 -0000 Subject: just how different? UK = Canada In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180708 --- Karen Lewellen wrote: > > >> bboyminn: > >> There are more differences in the earlier books in the series. > >> In the last book or two there were very few changes. Some > >> changes are for terminology, and others are editing decision > >> that are different between the UK publisher and the US > >> publisher. > > > What about the Canadian ones? These are the focus of my question, > not the American editions. > > Karen > bboyminn: Sorry, I intended to put that in my original post. The UK and Canadian editions are the same. If you plan to buy them, buy them from Canada, it's cheaper than ordering them from the UK. Steve/bboyminn With apologies for the short post. From potterfan220 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 21:50:03 2008 From: potterfan220 at yahoo.com (Karinsa Davis) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:50:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <191080.35372.qm@web46012.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180709 Steve wrote: > > Snape told Voldemort about the Prophecy, though, according to the books, Snape only heard the first part of the Prophecy. > potterfan220: > Voldemort did choose to make it a self-fulfilling Prophecy. > He chose to believe that a boy was to be born that could > defeat him. Carol responds: One small correction. Voldemort chose to act on the Prophecy in an attempt to thwart it. He did not (deliberately) choose to make it self-fulfilling. Had he chosen to ignore Severus Snape's information, dismissing prophecies as hokum and trusting in his Horcruxes to protect him, the Prophecy would have gone unfulfilled. If by "self-fulfilling prophecy" we mean that Voldemort himself created "the one with the power" to defeat him, then, yes, Voldemort's own actions, his choices, made it into the accurate prediction of the future that it turned out to be potterfan220: But it could also be said that the Prophecy would in fact come true even if Voldemort had not acted on Snapes words. It just would have happened a little differently. In the prophecy it says that he will mark the boy as his equal before it said anything about one having to kill the other. Voldemort would not have not acted, he sees a threat even though he did not know all of the prophecy, the result probly would have been the same if he had waited until Harry was an adult. He had to mark him as an equal first according to the prophecy. Yes I think he would have gone after Neville if he had killed Harry. I do not Harry would have had the same strength or sence of revenge tword Voldemort if Voldemort had not klilled Lilly. The suffering that Harry went thru made him the man that could defeat Voldemort, I do not think it could have happened any other way. The way he felt when people did in the final battle is proof of the way Harry was as a person. He felt that it was his fault and that those people dided because of him, he could not see that they dies defending what they thought was right. potterfan220 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 17 01:58:01 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:58:01 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180710 > Betsy Hp: >> I mean, yes I'd have found the story *much* more interesting if Snape > and Draco had played central roles (that rushed by chapter does not a > central role make, IMO), and of course that's personal. But I also > think it goes towards the merits of the book itself because JKR > pulled a cheat, IMO. She failed to answer the question she'd asked. > So her young hero ended up quite flat and childish and her story > ended up... well, quite flat and childish. IMO, of course. Alla: Oh, but did she ever asked that question? Or there Draco and Snape (Draco more than Snape) just tiny pieces on Harry's journey and THAT was her story to tell? I think this was her story indeed and just as Sirius was created for Harry to experience the murder of father figure, Snape for example was created for Harry to learn that even greasy gits can love his mom. Draco was created for Harry to learn that not all Slytherins are killers, etc. I do not believe that they were ever created to take a central stage you were imagining them taking, especially the same central stage as Harry or even share with him. And why would they? JKR was telling Harry's story and all other characters are just helpers, no? JMO. Alla, who is home finally. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Jan 17 04:34:52 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:34:52 -0000 Subject: just how different? UK = Canada In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180711 > bboyminn: > > Sorry, I intended to put that in my original post. The UK and Canadian editions are the same. If you plan to buy them, buy them from Canada, it's cheaper than ordering them from the UK. Steve/bboyminn With apologies for the short post. Tiffany: I buy the British versions to the canonical novels from a Canadian bookstore online. The UK & Canadian editions are essentially the same from cover to cover with a few minor differences. There may be some revisions of slang & terms to reflect the differences in audiences for the HP books, but that's about it, so there won't be any thing truly serious or something that would alter the contents of the canon itself. From klewellen at shellworld.net Thu Jan 17 05:02:00 2008 From: klewellen at shellworld.net (Karen Lewellen) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:02:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: just how different? UK = Canada In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180712 > Tiffany: > > from cover to cover with a few minor differences. There may be some > revisions of slang & terms to reflect the differences in audiences for > the HP books, but that's about it, so there won't be any thing truly > serious or something that would alter the contents of the canon itself. > Karen: I may have snipped too tightly but others shared the differences in Slang. Can someone give me a small example? I am really trying to picture how such editorial decisions are made, given how global things are these days. I can imagine the UK to American thing, but UK to Canadian? Karen > From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Jan 17 06:01:58 2008 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:01:58 -0000 Subject: just how different? UK = Canada In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180713 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Karen Lewellen wrote: > > Karen: I may have snipped too tightly but others shared the differences in > Slang. Can someone give me a small example? > I am really trying to picture how such editorial decisions are made, given > how global things are these days. > I can imagine the UK to American thing, but UK to Canadian? > Karen > > > Allie: Small example: Harry's shoes are referred to as "sneakers" in some places and "trainers" in others. I think by the time HBP came around, the editors left the British term "trainers" in the US edition. (Harry hiding in the luggage rack in Malfoy's compartment and his "trainers" flash through the air.) From s_ings at yahoo.com Thu Jan 17 06:03:49 2008 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:03:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: just how different? UK = Canada In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <61773.67412.qm@web63405.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180714 > > bboyminn: > > > > Sorry, I intended to put that in my original post. > The UK and > Canadian editions are the same. If you plan to buy > them, buy > them from Canada, it's cheaper than ordering them > from the UK. > > Tiffany: > > I buy the British versions to the canonical novels > from a Canadian > bookstore online. The UK & Canadian editions are > essentially the same > from cover to cover with a few minor differences. > There may be some > revisions of slang & terms to reflect the > differences in audiences for > the HP books, but that's about it, so there won't be > any thing truly > serious or something that would alter the contents > of the canon itself. > Sheryll: As far as I know, there are no revisions of slang or any other terms in the Canadian editions. The Canadian and UK versions are the same. Like Geoff said previously, there have been some comparisons done previously if anyone wanted to search back in the posts to find them. Sheryll, proud owner of many HP books in different languages Join the fun at Convention Alley 2008 Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 17 08:34:05 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:34:05 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180715 > > Pippin: > > I don't get it. Somehow Voldemort isn't getting credit for > > finding a way to take over the WW without a fight. > > > > Betsy Hp: > The reason I'm not giving Voldemort much credit for it was that DH > made it appear so insultingly easy.(Insulting for the WW, anyway.) Mike: Goddlefrood has experienced a coup in the RW, he convinced me that it can happen just that easily. Still, that's fine by me. I wasn't reading these books to inform me on the RW. So read on, please. > Betsy Hp: > I never got the sense that Voldemort could have succeeded as he > did in the RW, so it wasn't even creepy in an "informing on real > life" kind of way. Instead I found myself rolling my eyes at how > easily lead the citizens of the WW were. >> Pippin: In real life he wouldn't have the Imperius curse so he wouldn't be able to make people obey him without training them. << Mike: But as Fudge and Scrimgeour allowed in "The Other Minister", the other side can do magic too. Unless the DEs Imperiused the entire ministry staff, and that's not the way I read that, there sure seemed to be a lot of timid sheep in the WW. Harry sees a dozen witches and wizards stuffing envelopes for the Muggle-Born Registration Commission. So they can't plead ignorance at what's going on under their noses, unlike some of the scenarios Alla painted for us with Stalinist Russia. Even if they're not particularly adept at fighting, they outnumber Dolores 12:1. Surely they could overpower her. And from the looks of things, these same odds exist throughout the Ministry. Adding to that, most likely not all of the department heads are in favor of the new regime or have been Imperiused. Do you think the DEs bothered to Imperiuse the head of maintenance, or any of the maintenance workers. I doesn't look like Reg Cattermole was a Voldemort supporter. How do these people continue doing their jobs as if nothing has changed while their family members are being persecuted? Scrimgeour was killed for crissakes! Are they that blind and stupid that they can't figure out what's happening around them? But no, they just continue using their wands for stuffing envelopes. It's not Real Life, they have magic. That's why this whole takeover/downfall felt wrong for me. Authorial choice that I didn't like. I can only think that time constraints caused this to happen faster than what made sense. She needed the Ministry to fall and didn't have time to show all the people being indoctrinated to the other side. > > Betsy Hp: > > Seriously, for me, Draco and Snape were the "face" of Slytherin. >> Betsy Hp: That JKR chose to not have Harry deal with the antagonists the series *had* been setting up, For six books, I'd say the Slytherin question was just that: the question. << Mike: That's the thing for me too. Voldemort was set up as the ultimate monster to be defeated, but he was in the background for too much of the series. Snape, and eventually Draco, took center stage as Harry's main antagonists. Even though I was convinced Snape was ultimately on the good side, Harry had issues to resolve with him. Resolution through Pensieve memories after the man was dead was unfair and a cheat, like Betsy said and imo too. This character deserved better. Draco was Harry's generation. Draco was the face of the Voldemort supporter for his age bracket. Don't we need something more than him making distasteful faces and hemming and hawing over identifying the Trio to know that he was wrong to support Voldy and had learned that? Especially since his last spoken words to a DE were "I'm on your side"? Redeemed? I don't know and didn't really care. But resolved? Not in my mind. I don't know that Draco learned anything other than fear for your family and yourself sucks. > > Pippin: > > Change into what? A useful citizen? An honored hero of the > > past? Oh wait, they did that. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Change into fully formed human beings. Which, granted, would have > put them ahead of the rest of the cast. But I'd been hoping for > more from the rest of the gang, too. Mike: I will disagree with Betsy regarding Snape here. I think he was fully formed before DH. I think he was resolved too. I didn't like either the way he was resolved nor his ultimate reason for that resolution, but that's personal taste as opposed to a failure of the author. But Draco, nope! His cardboard cut-out was finally filled with air in HBP. But that air squeed out throughout DH so that he finished as a cardboard cut-out again. But since his stand was removed after that year of living like a live character, when he was deflated again he couldn't even be stood up any more. Draco was an authorial failure, imo. > Betsy Hp: > Hm, I'd say Snape died a slave, honestly. He certainly wasn't his > own man. And I don't think Draco was ever really freed either. Mike: No, Snape was Lily's man, which was creepy and disappointing at the same time. But I don't think that made him a slave to anyone, just stunted emotionally, and unrealistically committed to Lily's son. Draco, yeah, nor argument here. ;) > Betsy Hp: > But, in a deeper sense, the WW is still embroiled in evil and > slavery. Voldemort was the manifestation of the sickness the WW > is suffering from, but killing him didn't effect a cure. Heck, > Harry didn't even address the issue. And so the WW is still > horribly stratified and bigoted, ripe for another Dark Lord to > appear. Oh, and slavery still very much exists. Mike: I know this is pointless to debate, but that never stopped me before. JKR began the WW rift (sickness?) with the founders. It has proceeded to this point having the last and ultimate decendant of the one founder versus the epitome of the other founder in a final duel. I don't see how she could have made it more clear that this is it, either the the good guys (Harry/Godric) win or the bad guys (Tom/Salazar) win. But in either case the rift is over. One side is going to win and consolidate the WW under their influence, their credo, their way the world should work. According to that reading, my reading, killing Voldemort was the cure. The rift has finally been solved by removing one side of the equation. Where does that leave Slytherin house? It's now up to them to realize that their founder and his decendant shaped a false credo for their followers and house. That pure-bloodism is a hateful and destructive dogma undeserving of holding status in their house. They have to see how Voldemort exploited them by feeding this false credo to his followers to their and his destruction. I don't know how JKR could have made this more obvious. It's now up to the Slytherins to understand this most obvious conclusion and self- correct. You may not like that Slytherins are the only ones to have to change, but that's definitely the way JKR wrote the story, imo. You may also not like that house elves are still slaves. But a few points here: Did any other elf besides the oddball Dobby refer to the condition as slavery? Dumbledore spoke to this issue, but wasn't he specifically addressing one elf? He spoke in platitudes about their condition, but he not only didn't raise a finger to change their condition, he employed hundreds of them as headmaster. Hermione raised the issue, but wasn't she shown to be wrongheaded in her original assessment and goal? The point being, JKR created these enchanted characters to be what they are. And instead of the object lesson being something about slavery, it was how not to impose your beliefs on others without consulting those others to see what they want. They're not humans, they are magical creatures with no parallel in the real world. The same thing goes for goblins. You might as well condemn the WW for keeping the merpeople in the lake. They can't survive outside of that lake, however unfair that is for their freedom. And if you tell me these things don't inform one on real life, I'll say again, you're right. But I didn't read this series for instruction on real life, and I don't think JKR wrote it for that purpose either. I wanted to be transported into her world, and I was. I wanted to care about the characters, and I did. I wanted to believe the story, solve the many riddles, have the characters act consistantly within their painted personalities, and follow the story to a logical conclusion. Even though none of these scored 100%, they scored high enough for me to consider it a success. So, yeah, I do think JKR succeeded with her story. Were there unresolved story lines, unsolved mysteries, plot holes left open? Sure! You want a big one that I just thought of? Why didn't Quirrell just "Accio Philosphers Stone" when he knew it was in Harry's pocket? Because we would have completely different books 2-4, that's why. But I didn't know about Accio until GoF, so it isn't a big deal. Most of the mistakes weren't a big deal, and none of them were deal breakers. YMMV. Mike ----------------------- Quick canon correction: Betsy Hp: I'm suspecting this is a Kingsly reference? That's not really canon is it? I thought this was just an interview bone JKR threw out at one point. Mike: Kingsley was announced as interim Minister after the final battle was over, while they're all still in the Great Hall. So, yeah, that much is canon. I suppose we're encouraged to think that it was made permanent at some time. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 17 13:18:19 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:18:19 -0000 Subject: just how different? UK = Canada In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180716 > > Karen: I may have snipped too tightly but others shared the differences in > Slang. Can someone give me a small example? > I am really trying to picture how such editorial decisions are made, given > how global things are these days. > I can imagine the UK to American thing, but UK to Canadian? > Karen Potioncat: I think the Lexicon has a list of differences. Although I'd much prefer to read a book the way it was written, I can understand why the first couple of HP books were changed. At that time, Scholastic was selling the books to American kids--and some of the words do have different meanings. I wish they had added a section explaining the differences rather than changing the words. The type of kids who would pick up a HP book, are not the type to be put off by extra reading material. From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 13:25:59 2008 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:25:59 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: just how different? UK = Canada In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40801170525p3941c6e0h6633e118daef9b47@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180717 > > Potioncat: > > I think the Lexicon has a list of differences. > > Although I'd much prefer to read a book the way it was written, I can > understand why the first couple of HP books were changed. At that time, > Scholastic was selling the books to American kids--and some of the > words do have different meanings. I wish they had added a section > explaining the differences rather than changing the words. The type of > kids who would pick up a HP book, are not the type to be put off by > extra reading material. montims: and I've said this before, but for the benefit (or otherwise!) of newer people - I don't understand that argument when British kids read American books in the original language - words they don't understand are either skipped over, or provoke research and discussion of the different meanings. In any case, they are generally understood - if I read about a character having "grits" for breakfast, I may not know what grits are, but I understand the concept... So when an American child is reading a book by a British author, about British protagonists having adventures in Britain, why on earth would they be using American slang, and why would the author employ American spelling? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 17 13:31:32 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:31:32 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180718 > Mike: > But as Fudge and Scrimgeour allowed in "The Other Minister", the > other side can do magic too. Unless the DEs Imperiused the entire > ministry staff, and that's not the way I read that, there sure > seemed to be a lot of timid sheep in the WW. > > > And from the looks of things, these same odds exist throughout the > Ministry. Adding to that, most likely not all of the department heads > are in favor of the new regime or have been Imperiused. Do you think > the DEs bothered to Imperiuse the head of maintenance, or any of the > maintenance workers. I doesn't look like Reg Cattermole was a > Voldemort supporter. How do these people continue doing their jobs > as if nothing has changed while their family members are being > persecuted? > a_svirn: Even worse, I got the impression that there was some sort of low- level resistance at the Ministry. I mean, why would offices of the top officials suddenly start to "rain" all over the place? And for Arthur to know the counter-jinx, I suppose he needed to know the jinx in the first place, did he? We know that someone confused Dawlish, so that Dirk Cresswell could escape. But that sort of thing looks more like a teen-age rebellion, than a mature resistance. Something along the lines of what the members of DA were doing at Hogwarts to undermine first Umbridge's and then Snape's regime. In other words, pointless defiance that only makes things worse for everyone. Pranks like "raining offices" only made the life of the maintenance people more difficult, if not actually endanger them, and what sort of help is confusing Dawlish? Why couldn't they smuggle Dirk abroad? Or put him somewhere safe? No, they confused Dawlish, and washed their hands. No wonder he was run down and killed eventually. There are lots of thing they could have done for the muggle-borns that were targeted, there were ways I suppose for them to find replacement wands for those who were forced to relinquished theirs etc. And why did they never take the offensive?! > Mike: > I know this is pointless to debate, but that never stopped me before. > JKR began the WW rift (sickness?) with the founders. It has > proceeded to this point having the last and ultimate decendant of the > one founder versus the epitome of the other founder in a final duel. > I don't see how she could have made it more clear that this is it, > either the the good guys (Harry/Godric) win or the bad guys > (Tom/Salazar) win. But in either case the rift is over. One side is > going to win and consolidate the WW under their influence, their > credo, their way the world should work. According to that reading, my > reading, killing Voldemort was the cure. The rift has finally been > solved by removing one side of the equation. > > Where does that leave Slytherin house? It's now up to them to realize > that their founder and his decendant shaped a false credo for their > followers and house. That pure-bloodism is a hateful and destructive > dogma undeserving of holding status in their house. They have to see > how Voldemort exploited them by feeding this false credo to his > followers to their and his destruction. a_svirn: But if they realise all that, why on earth would they even want to be in Slytherin? Or, for that matter, why the WW would want to put up with Slytherin House? Slytherin is all about purebloodism and Realpolitik, remove both and there would be nothing left. It is one thing to forgive or redeem, or whatever the members of, say, SS who saw errors of their ways at last, but no one in their right mind would want to *reform* SS. So I'd say that Rowling set up a problem that has no resolution. You can't change the Nazi ideology into something acceptable. You can only renounce it, but in doing so you'd have to renounce the Nazi institutions as well. Whereas Rowling supposedly expects from Slytherins to change while still remaining Slytherins. That can't possibly work. > Mike: > You may also not like that house elves are still slaves. > > The point being, JKR created these enchanted characters to be what > they are. And instead of the object lesson being something about > slavery, it was how not to impose your beliefs on others without > consulting those others to see what they want. a_svirn: I daresay she could have found a less disgusting way to demonstrate it. Besides, this way it looks like *they* impose their beliefs on wizards with impunity. I mean look how happily wizards settled into being slave-owners. Why should they give up their beliefs to accommodate elves? Unless of course they have no real objection to slavery, after all. > Mike: They're not humans, > they are magical creatures with no parallel in the real world. The > same thing goes for goblins. a_svirn: Actually it doesn't. Goblins are by no means happy with the status quo. > Mike: You might as well condemn the WW for > keeping the merpeople in the lake. They can't survive outside of > that lake, however unfair that is for their freedom. a_svirn: No one *keeps* them in the lake any more that they *keep* centaurs in the forest. They *live* there and try to keep their habitat safe from the encroaching wizards. a_svirn From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 17 13:54:55 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:54:55 -0000 Subject: just how different? UK = Canada In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40801170525p3941c6e0h6633e118daef9b47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180719 > montims wrote: snip (some of the best parts) > > So when an American child is reading a book by a British author, about > British protagonists having adventures in Britain, why on earth would they > be using American slang, and why would the author employ American spelling? Potioncat: I should have said I understand why, not that I agree with... But, tell me, in England, when you read an American book, is the spelling American style? Are the books provided by the same publisher in England as in America? I've never really understood why HP has three publishers. Until HP, I never gave this a thought. Now I have to think back to other books I've read and whether there were changes. Back to HP, there weren't any major changes in the wording. I mean, as far as I know, while jumper was changed to sweater, that's because jumper in America is a dress. No one changed Kidney pie to mac-and- cheese. Potioncat, who snipped the part about grits, but for those of you who live in the USA, above the Mason-Dixon line, grits is a cereal made from ground corn, often eaten at breakfast. ;-) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jan 17 16:37:27 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:37:27 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180720 > a_svirn: > Even worse, I got the impression that there was some sort of low- > level resistance at the Ministry. I mean, why would offices of the > top officials suddenly start to "rain" all over the place? And for > Arthur to know the counter-jinx, I suppose he needed to know the jinx > in the first place, did he? Magpie: I mentioned that recently too--that was exactly the impression I got. In the end it seemed like everybody just knew they weren't the hero of the story or something. > a_svirn: > But if they realise all that, why on earth would they even want to be > in Slytherin? Or, for that matter, why the WW would want to put up > with Slytherin House? Slytherin is all about purebloodism and > Realpolitik, remove both and there would be nothing left. It is one > thing to forgive or redeem, or whatever the members of, say, SS who > saw errors of their ways at last, but no one in their right mind > would want to *reform* SS. So I'd say that Rowling set up a problem > that has no resolution. Magpie: I frankly got the impression she didn't want a resolution. I admit I thought that it was going to go that Draco, as the current generation, was going to take the next step after Snape and Regulus. Regulus realized he was wrong, but had to die for it. Snape also realized he was wrong too late and so had to spend his life trying to fix things (this turned out to not be true the way I thought it was). Draco, I thought, would be the person who made the mistake, realized the mistake, but would, partly due to the sacrifices of those other Slytherins, get the chance to have a real life with his new knowledge. That would be the sign we needed that racists can change their beliefs and learn better. Slytherin didn't have to be the house it was. Only it then became clear JKR wasn't at all interested in really ever showing racists changing their beliefs. When thse Slytherins had changes of heart it wasn't about that. The heart of the thing was the people they loved being threatened each time, with no dawning enlightenment about racism. Sure their racism might have become more distasteful to them because it reminded them of Voldemort, but the central issue of their loved ones wasn't all about leading them to that idea. (Snape has one unmistakably anti- racist line in "don't use that word," but the word's most personal meaning for him is connected to his loss of Lily. Any bigger understanding is left to the reader to make up--it's plausible but not necessary.) Meanwhile Slytherin House is, as you say here, identified more and more with this ideology, so it becomes more clear that if you actually became a better person, you wouldn't be a Slytherin. There is no place for them to evolve to, no "other Slytherin" for them to return to or rediscover. I really just got the feeling that the author didn't want that kind of resolution--perhaps to her it didn't even feel like a resolution. The resolutions of the characters, for me, wound up feeling stingy and artificial, like she'd created characters that seemed to naturally develop in a more meaningful way and then were stuffed back into a less satisfying box because they aren't supposed to have that capability. It really was all about Harry's heroic development, and that development was not about them in the end. This just gets validated for me when JKR does interviews and is so imo incoherent about just what Slytherin is and why it exists and what its function is. The book's statement on them is pretty uniform and bad, and this is only counteracted in interviews with wishy weak protests about how they're "not all bad" and more of what sounds like vague backpeddling, like saying it's "harsh" to condemn 11 year olds by Sorting them. Only the Sorting Hat is never wrong, and besides, how can one be condemned by a Hat that's just telling you what's inside you? It's like she's acknowledging that being in Slytherin is a condemnation but then not being totally honest about what that says because it always leads to the kind of resolution she's avoiding. In the end the founder's story was repeated--Slytherin was always a champion of Pureblood supremacy and bloodlines, even if he was always also about ambition and cunning (so he's a racist with a desire to promote his chosen group even in underhanded ways). He was a founder--we don't know why. Perhaps Gryffindor, too, was temporary blinded by his gift for magic. Then he left, and that brought about peace. That seemed to be just the way JKR wanted it and still does. Slytherin still brings the other 3 houses together, it's still the half-house, the one that is part of the school but not part of the school. There's actually no call on Slytherin whatsoever to change-- they are what they are. So we're left with the question asked here: why are they suffered to remain? To me it seems like the answer to that question is found in the psychology of the WW and the author. It's comforting to somebody to have this house in the form that it exists, periodically gaining power and then symbolically brought low- -but never healed or destroyed. Remember, the question of "why is there a Slytherin?" is only one outside the books. It's one JKR gets asked in interviews and she's yet to really have an answer for it at all. The WW doesn't seem to question it's existance at all and enjoy having it just the way it is. -m From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 19:01:40 2008 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:01:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: just how different? UK = Canada In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40801170525p3941c6e0h6633e118daef9b47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40801171101t332d1dbfo7dc3f295499aa483@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180721 > > montims wrote: > snip (some of the best parts) > > > > > So when an American child is reading a book by a British author, about > > British protagonists having adventures in Britain, why on earth would > they > > be using American slang, and why would the author employ American > spelling? > > > Potioncat: > I should have said I understand why, not that I agree with... > > But, tell me, in England, when you read an American book, is the > spelling American style? Are the books provided by the same publisher > in England as in America? I've never really understood why HP has three > publishers. montims: it is not necessarily the same publisher, but yes, the spelling and terminology are just as in the original, whether written for adults or children. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net Thu Jan 17 19:35:20 2008 From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:35:20 -0000 Subject: just how different Canada, UK, US Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180722 I'm looking at the UK amazon (www.amazon.co.uk), which has 'adult' and 'children' editions. Are the differences between these all 'cosmetic', e.g., cover illustration? Pippin Fowler wishing he had known of other editions before purchasing a US set From cottell at dublin.ie Thu Jan 17 19:42:44 2008 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:42:44 -0000 Subject: just how different Canada, UK, US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180723 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Pippin" <1kf.lists at ...> wrote: > > I'm looking at the UK amazon (www.amazon.co.uk), which has 'adult' > and 'children' editions. Are the differences between these > all 'cosmetic', e.g., cover illustration? > > Pippin Fowler > wishing he had known of other editions before purchasing a US set They're purely cosmetic, driven by the silly idea that adults wouldn't want to be seen reading a children's book. I could understand this for the first couple, perhaps, but by 2003, you needed to be living under a rock not to know what the books were. Still, they'll appeal to completists. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jan 17 19:55:34 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:55:34 -0000 Subject: just how different? UK = Canada In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40801171101t332d1dbfo7dc3f295499aa483@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180724 > > Potioncat: > > I should have said I understand why, not that I agree with... > > > > But, tell me, in England, when you read an American book, is the > > spelling American style? Are the books provided by the same publisher > > in England as in America? I've never really understood why HP has three > > publishers. > montims: > it is not necessarily the same publisher, but yes, the spelling and > terminology are just as in the original, whether written for adults or > children. Magpie: Are you basing that on knowing it for a fact or just what seems to be true in your experience? Because I don't think you're correct. There are books in America that keep the British spelling just as there are books in England that keep the American spelling, but I don't believe it's a case of just always being done in the US and never the other way around. I remember in particular Susan Cooper talking about fights with a particularly strict copy editor working on the British editions of her Dark is Rising series and she definitely seemed to be picking through the books for Americanisms that might have needed to be changed for Great Britain. The books take place in Britain, of course, so it's not like she was trying to have American characters use British slang (in fact what she was doing was accusing Cooper of having them use American slang when they weren't), but still they seemed to be putting out the British books the standard words for things and standard spelling for that market--it's not an odd thing to do. If you're publishing a book for your own market you would naturally use the same guides as usual. By which I don't mean changing the dialogue to sound British when the people are American, but using spelling and punctuation you use. Actually, now I'm remembering a book that was going to be published by the place where I worked years ago--it was a British book and we were going to do the American edition. Presumably they did say they were going to use the spelling the US copyeditors used, and may have said they might change a word if it were confusing. I'm not sure what the deal was, but this author wanted to do it--himself. I still laugh over the ms he sent in--a thousand times more changes than the American editors would ever have even considered making, much of it changing expressions that were either perfectly understandable to Americans or actually the way Americans would say it into bizarre turns of phrase that I guess sounded American to him. Which was an odd choice given the book was set in England. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 17 20:19:22 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:19:22 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180725 > Magpie: > In the end the founder's story was repeated--Slytherin was always a > champion of Pureblood supremacy and bloodlines, even if he was > always also about ambition and cunning (so he's a racist with a > desire to promote his chosen group even in underhanded ways). He was > a founder--we don't know why. Perhaps Gryffindor, too, was temporary > blinded by his gift for magic. Then he left, and that brought about > peace. That seemed to be just the way JKR wanted it and still does. > Slytherin still brings the other 3 houses together, it's still the > half-house, the one that is part of the school but not part of the > school. There's actually no call on Slytherin whatsoever to change-- > they are what they are. So we're left with the question asked here: > why are they suffered to remain? To me it seems like the answer to > that question is found in the psychology of the WW and the author. > It's comforting to somebody to have this house in the form that it > exists, periodically gaining power and then symbolically brought low- > -but never healed or destroyed. > > Remember, the question of "why is there a Slytherin?" is only one > outside the books. It's one JKR gets asked in interviews and she's > yet to really have an answer for it at all. The WW doesn't seem to > question it's existance at all and enjoy having it just the way it > is. > a_svirn: I suppose. Only that's ... more than a little unwise of them, is it? Why would they find recreating the Original Rift over and over again comforting? By maintaining the house of the power-hungry pure-blood supremacists they ensure transmitting their ideology through generations, they help to preserve and develop their social networks. In short, they create all the conditions needed for another Dark Lord to emerge. What's so comforting in knowing that "all is well" means in actual fact "all is well so far"? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 17 21:11:00 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:11:00 -0000 Subject: Different UK editions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180726 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Pippin" <1kf.lists at ...> wrote: > > I'm looking at the UK amazon (www.amazon.co.uk), which has 'adult' > and 'children' editions. Are the differences between these > all 'cosmetic', e.g., cover illustration? > > Pippin Fowler > wishing he had known of other editions before purchasing a US set Geoff: Bloomsbury, the UK publishers, actually produce three versions. Amazon list two - the so-called Children's Edition and the Adult Edition. These are in fact identical, down to thepage numbering and text on each page. I then in fact discovered teh De Luxe editions and for the last few issues have first bought an Adult editino and then the De Luxe edition for my bookshelf.They are rather nice - an amalgam for the two previous and without a dust jacket. If you like to follow the link below, I have posted a photo of my set of De Luxe editions - they are a good deal more expensive but a nice addition to my HP/LOTR bookshelf. www.geoffbannister.com/images/hpbookcovers.jpg From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 17 22:44:25 2008 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:44:25 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478FDA49.6060003@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180727 a_svirn wrote: > > a_svirn: > But if they realise all that, why on earth would they even want to be > in Slytherin? Or, for that matter, why the WW would want to put up > with Slytherin House? Slytherin is all about purebloodism and > Realpolitik, remove both and there would be nothing left. It is one > thing to forgive or redeem, or whatever the members of, say, SS who > saw errors of their ways at last, but no one in their right mind > would want to *reform* SS. So I'd say that Rowling set up a problem > that has no resolution. You can't change the Nazi ideology into > something acceptable. You can only renounce it, but in doing so you'd > have to renounce the Nazi institutions as well. Whereas Rowling > supposedly expects from Slytherins to change while still remaining > Slytherins. That can't possibly work. > I disagree here. Just because Rowling does not understand the point of Slytherin house minus pure-bloodism, does not mean there is not one. Troy would not have fallen with the Gryffindor antics of Achilles alone. They needed Odysseus as well. And surely he was the father of all Slytherins? A famous event in Jewish history, the Metsada siege, ended with the defenders committing mass suicide rather than surrender. Except for one guy, Josephus Flavius, who later became a model roman citizen and famous writer. So the saying goes something like that: "If all the Jews were like Metsada defenders, there would be no Jews. If all the Jews were like Josephus Flavius, there would be no Jews." It's always the balance of different personalities that makes things viable. Rowling wants her elephant to stand on one leg and us to believe that it's the only honourable position for the poor beast? Fine, but we don't have to accept that as a fact of life. In one of her recent interviews she said that in the battle of Hogwarts Slytherins left to get reinforcements, and she says it in a derogatory manner. Surely there are some situations where it's necessary to do just that? She seems to prefer glorious suicide, but I don't have to accept that as a universal solution either. We don't all have the loopholes that Harry enjoyed. Irene From potterfan220 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 17 18:12:22 2008 From: potterfan220 at yahoo.com (potterfan220) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:12:22 -0000 Subject: Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180728 > Alla: > > Oh, but did she ever asked that question? Or there Draco and Snape > (Draco more than Snape) just tiny pieces on Harry's journey and THAT > was her story to tell? There would be no reason for Snape or Draco to play bigger roles, they are secondary characters and they are not important figures in Harry's life. potterfan220 From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 18 01:01:15 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:01:15 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180729 > Mike: > But as Fudge and Scrimgeour allowed in "The Other Minister", the > other side can do magic too. Unless the DEs Imperiused the entire > ministry staff, and that's not the way I read that, there sure > seemed to be a lot of timid sheep in the WW. > > Harry sees a dozen witches and wizards stuffing envelopes for the > Muggle-Born Registration Commission. So they can't plead ignorance > at what's going on under their noses, unlike some of the scenarios > Alla painted for us with Stalinist Russia. Even if they're not > particularly adept at fighting, they outnumber Dolores 12:1. Surely > they could overpower her. Pippin: But they can't overpower dementors or inferi, nor can they maintain wizarding secrecy if Voldemort uses his full power in London. As long as people are more afraid of those things than they are of Voldemort's regime, he has an advantage. In Stalin's time, many were more afraid of Hitler or of resurrected Czarism than they were of him. Mike: > Scrimgeour was killed for crissakes! Are they that blind and stupid > that they can't figure out what's happening around them? Pippin: Why didn't the passsengers of three 9/11 planes rise up against their hijackers? Because they'd been trained to believe that the way to safeguard lives was to cooperate. Unlike the people on the fourth plane, they never had a chance to learn otherwise. *We* can see a Final Solution looming ahead for the Muggleborn, but the WW has been isolated from the Muggle world. They don't have our perspective. During the nine years between Hitler's rise to power and the implementation of the final solution, many Germans, Jews and non-Jews alike, believed that if the Jews kept their heads down, things would get better eventually. It always had in the past. I can see the Order walking a fine line between doing enough so that people would not feel they had to take things into their own hands and provoking Voldemort into wholesale retaliation. IMO, they trusted that Dumbledore's plan would defeat LV without a mass uprising and so it did, with a lot fewer casualties on either side. Mike: She needed the Ministry to fall and didn't have time to show > all the people being indoctrinated to the other side. Pippin: I think Umbridge's regime at Hogwarts showed us how difficult launching an effective resistance would be. Harry's group was far down the learning curve, but grown wizards who weren't members of the Order wouldn't be much better off. Although Neville scrawled "Join Dumbledore's army" on the walls, he wasn't actually accepting new members into the RoR. He didn't know who to trust. Anybody, even Order members, could be confunded or imperius'd into betraying their dearest blood. The Order had the same problem. > > > Betsy Hp: > > > Seriously, for me, Draco and Snape were the "face" of Slytherin. > > >> Betsy Hp: > That JKR chose to not have Harry deal with the antagonists the > series *had* been setting up, > > For six books, I'd say the Slytherin question was just that: the > question. << > > Mike: > That's the thing for me too. Voldemort was set up as the ultimate > monster to be defeated, but he was in the background for too much of > the series. Snape, and eventually Draco, took center stage as Harry's > main antagonists. Pippin: But only in Harry's imagination were they a real threat to him. That's the Slytherin question as it's put in canon. "Perhaps it was Harry's imagination, after all he'd heard about Slytherin, but he thought they looked an unpleasant lot." Apart from Voldemort, Harry's real enemy, his only real antagonist, is his own imagination. Snape was never a real threat to Harry -- with Harry at his mercy the worst he ever delivered was a stinging hex. Similarly, Draco never did anything worse to Harry than break his nose. It is therefore appropriate that Harry resolves these imaginary issues in his own mind. Harry's main issue with the real Snape was resolved in HBP with the "no need to call me Sir" remark. Snape never again attempted to humiliate Harry in public. Harry was no longer to be cowed by cruel words, detentions, points lost or grades withheld, and Snape knew it. Oh, he still laid into Harry when he got the chance, but that was venting in private. Mike: > Draco was Harry's generation. Draco was the face of the Voldemort > supporter for his age bracket. Don't we need something more than him > making distasteful faces and hemming and hawing over identifying the > Trio to know that he was wrong to support Voldy and had learned that? Pippin: Harry's mistake about Draco was to think he had it in him to be a mighty warrior. To have him turn into one would mean that Harry hadn't been wrong. Dudley has a real change of heart and so Harry's earlier assessment of Dudley does not look biased. The old Dudley really would have set a booby trap for Harry. But the old Draco never had it in him to be a fighter. Still, I wouldn't say that Draco didn't change. He proved himself, if only to the hapless Goyle. Who would have saved Goyle if Draco hadn't? Harry found Draco because Draco screamed, but he would never have found the unconscious Goyle in time. And if we don't care that Goyle was saved, then we've had our consciousness raised a bit: it's not as easy to think every life is worth saving as the innocent believe. > > > Betsy Hp: > > Hm, I'd say Snape died a slave, honestly. He certainly wasn't his > > own man. And I don't think Draco was ever really freed either. Pippin: The difference between service in loyalty and service in slavery is choice. Snape's choices were his own. Dumbledore did not make him feel defiled, that was Snape's own very Slytherin devotion to purity, the devotion that drew him to Lily in the first place. > Mike: > > Where does that leave Slytherin house? It's now up to them to realize > that their founder and his decendant shaped a false credo for their > followers and house. That pure-bloodism is a hateful and destructive > dogma undeserving of holding status in their house. They have to see > how Voldemort exploited them by feeding this false credo to his > followers to their and his destruction. Pippin: Hear! Hear! It is for Slytherins to develop a more advanced concept of the values Salazar exalted: family and purity. Family needs no defense, although it gets one when Harry sends Lupin packing. As for purity, why is it Slytherins who are most moved by bad conscience? Because they are the ones to whom defilement matters most. If they learn to seek purity of soul rather than purity of blood, they could become the most moral of the houses. Mike: > You may also not like that house elves are still slaves. But a few > points here: Did any other elf besides the oddball Dobby refer to the > condition as slavery? Dumbledore spoke to this issue, but wasn't he > specifically addressing one elf? He spoke in platitudes about their > condition, but he not only didn't raise a finger to change their > condition, he employed hundreds of them as headmaster. Hermione > raised the issue, but wasn't she shown to be wrongheaded in her > original assessment and goal? Pippin: Only half-wrong. She was right to want better conditions for the Elves. She succeeded in getting them for Kreacher and in getting Ron involved in their welfare. But as with Slytherin, it is for the Elves to decide what their goals are, worthy or not. Wizards need to lift the enchantments that make House Elves punish themselves, but that is a long term goal, like the cure for lycanthropy. Mike: > > Were there unresolved story lines, unsolved mysteries, plot holes > left open? Sure! You want a big one that I just thought of? Why > didn't Quirrell just "Accio Philosphers Stone" when he knew it was in > Harry's pocket? Pippin: This was resolved in OOP. Harry's seeker reflexes would have been too quick, as they were when he kept hold of the prophecy. In any case Quirrell does not seem to have had his wand out. Once he was burned I'm sure he lacked the concentration for wandless magic. But as Tolkien said, it is "unexplored vistas" that make a story world seem real. Pippin Thanking those who referenced the Kingsley canon for her. From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net Fri Jan 18 01:53:25 2008 From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:53:25 -0000 Subject: Different UK editions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180730 > Geoff: > If you like to follow the link below, I have posted a photo of my > set of De Luxe editions - they are a good deal more expensive but > a nice addition to my HP/LOTR bookshelf. > > www.geoffbannister.com/images/hpbookcovers.jpg > Pippin Fowler: Thank you, Geoff. It looks like your set is the amazon.co.uk Special Edition. I tried to order a used (damaged case) set, but the market place vendor will not ship to the U.S. I'll see what is available in Canada. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 03:00:39 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 03:00:39 -0000 Subject: just how different? UK = Canada In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40801170525p3941c6e0h6633e118daef9b47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180731 montims wrote: > > So when an American child is reading a book by a British author, about > British protagonists having adventures in Britain, why on earth would they > be using American slang, and why would the author employ American spelling? Carol responds: All American publishers have what's called "house style," a style of spelling and punctuation used in all their books. That includes Americanizing British spelling and punctuation. British slang is another matter. Unless a word or phrase (like "pot plant" or "pecker") has a different (and somewhat unsavory or off color) meaning in American English, I agree with you that the slang and idiomatic expressions should be retained. But I also think that it would be a good idea to include a British-to-American glossary in the back of each book, along with a list of phrases that might not be immediately comprehensible. (I'm still thrown by some of Ron's expressions even after seven books.) Ideally, an American editor would make a list of terms that American readers (not just children) might find unfamiliar and JKR would provide synonyms or definitions. Or, if she's unfamiliar with the American terms, the American editors could compile a list of definitions or synonyms for her approval, "sweater" for "jumper" and "sneakers" for "trainers" being among the more obvious entries. But "chocolate gateau" and "spotted dick" would require input from JKR herself or a British editor, I would think, considering that such "puddings" (desserts) seldom find a place on American tables or menus. Inquisitive readers, kids especially, would find such a glossary interesting, especially if it's done with a touch of mischievous JKR-style humor. Carol, noting that while American kids can read British books without a glossary, a good glossary would eliminate confusion and increase enjoyment, at least for those who want to learn a bit about British customs and culture From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 03:53:09 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 03:53:09 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180732 > Pippin: > But they can't overpower dementors or inferi, nor can they > maintain wizarding secrecy if Voldemort uses his full power in > London. As long as people are more afraid of those things than > they are of Voldemort's regime, he has an advantage. In Stalin's > time, many were more afraid of Hitler or of resurrected Czarism > than they were of him. Mike: Well, there were no inferi and why would they have to overpower the dementors? Dementors aren't particular who is in charge, they'll accept DEs and collaborators as feed as easily as they accepted Muggleborns. More concerned for wizarding secrecy than their loved ones? Really? Do you see that as an actual internal conflict for the Ministry sheep? If so, that proves their actualization of this ovine behaviour better than my examples. Who's regime were the Ministry workers more fearful of returning or taking over than Voldemort's? Fudge's? (What ever happened to that portly bowler-wearer?) > Pippin: > Why didn't the passsengers of three 9/11 planes rise up against > their hijackers? Because they'd been trained to believe that the > way to safeguard lives was to cooperate. Unlike the people on the > fourth plane, they never had a chance to learn otherwise. Mike: Yes, I think I said that JKR didn't have time or didn't want to waste the ink showing how the Ministry was cowed and/or indoctrinated into believing there was no hope of fighting. That's my way over covering what I otherwise think of as a plot hole. And yet there were certainly hints that pockets of, as a_svirn explained, juvenile quality resistance that existed. That seems to undermine the impression that resistance is futile, they have been assimilated. I think JKR should have showed either less resistance, or shown how these few were subjucating these many through some more effective means. If I had seen Rowle whispering to PJ'd Harry, "Dept. X is getting out of line, Crucio party at 3:00", maybe I'd have bought that. Then again, maybe not. But you see my point? > Pippin: > > I can see the Order walking a fine line between doing enough so > that people would not feel they had to take things into their own > hands and provoking Voldemort into wholesale retaliation. IMO, > they trusted that Dumbledore's plan would defeat LV without a > mass uprising and so it did, with a lot fewer casualties on > either side. Mike: I don't think this is about the Order at all. Or Dumbledore for that matter. I never got the impression that these people were aware of any plan nor expecting others to come to their rescue. They seemed ridiculously content with the conditions at hand. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180718 > > > Mike: > > You may also not like that house elves are still slaves. > > > > And instead of the object lesson being something about slavery, > > it was how not to impose your beliefs on others without > > consulting those others to see what they want. > > a_svirn: > I daresay she could have found a less disgusting way to > demonstrate it. Mike: Possibly, but we're talking authorial prerogative and taste here. That doesn't change my perception that JKR wasn't looking to make a point about slavery, that it was fandoms mistake to draw that parallel. > a_svirn: > Besides, this way it looks like *they* impose their beliefs on > wizards with impunity. I mean look how happily wizards settled > into being slave-owners. Why should they give up their beliefs > to accommodate elves? Unless of course they have no real > objection to slavery, after all. Mike: I'm not sure that I correctly understand your point here, but I'll attempt an answer anyway. ;) I beg your pardon if I repeat myself. Dobby was the oddball elf. He was the one that spoke of "enslavement", he was the only one that spoke of "freedom". I think Dobby's plight was supposed to be a reflection on the Malfoys. Notice how JKR kept that information from us until the end of CoS? The rest of the elves considered their "enchantment" as their being, their reason d'etre. This "enchantment" can be their originating condition, despite whatever their subsequent "treatment" was by the wizards. The rest of the elves treated their possible release as being "fired", not as achieving their "freedom". I think Dumbledore was speaking to this "treatment" by wizards, in the same way Dobby was lamenting his treatment by the Malfoys. Despite his different outlook than his fellow elves, Dobby proved by his negotiations with Dumbledore that as an elf he still was compelled to serve a master and to seek subservience, even though he was technically "free". > > Mike: > > They're not humans, they are magical creatures with no > > parallel in the real world. The same thing goes for goblins. > > > > a_svirn: > Actually it doesn't. Goblins are by no means happy with the > status quo. Mike: I'm afraid I may have been unclear. I was saying that Goblins, like elves, were magical creatures with no parallel in the RL. That's the way I read JKR's description of them. They were greedy, unreasonable, intelligent, magical creatures (from the wizarding perspective) and their sense of fair play eluded the wizarding mind. That's about as far as we were taken into the goblin world, imo. No further judgement was needed on their condition since they only played a bit part in this play. > > Mike: > > You might as well condemn the WW for keeping the merpeople > > in the lake. They can't survive outside of that lake, > > however unfair that is for their freedom. > > a_svirn: > No one *keeps* them in the lake any more than they *keep* > centaurs in the forest. They *live* there and try to keep their > habitat safe from the encroaching wizards. Mike: Yes and elves *live* in wizard houses serving wizards. Without their servitude in the wizard houses, they are just as much fish out of water as merpeople would be out of the lake. I think too many people are forgetting Winky's plight and the attitude of every other house elf besides Dobby in trying to shoehorn the house elf object lesson into being about slavery, and therefore a failure on JKR's part. As for resolution, Pippin brought up a good point: >> But as with Slytherin, it is for the Elves to decide what their goals are, worthy or not. Wizards need to lift the enchantments that make House Elves punish themselves, but that is a long term goal, like the cure for lycanthropy. << > > Mike: > > > > You want a big one that I just thought of? Why didn't > > Quirrell just "Accio Philosphers Stone" when he knew it > > was in Harry's pocket? > > Pippin: > This was resolved in OOP. Harry's seeker reflexes would have been > too quick, as they were when he kept hold of the prophecy. In > any case Quirrell does not seem to have had his wand out. Once > he was burned I'm sure he lacked the concentration for wandless > magic. Mike: Point of order : Harry used Protego to hold onto the prophesy orb against Bella's Accios. He didn't know this spell in PS/SS. Also, Harry wasn't going anywhere, Quirrell had plenty of time to draw his wand instead of physically attacking him. You're not suggesting Quirrell made the trip into the test chambers without his wand? > Pippin: > But as Tolkien said, it is "unexplored vistas" that make a story > world seem real. Mike: Which is why I still revel in the unrevealed of the Potterverse. I will continue to employ my Plot Hole Filler when needed, and learn from others what they see from their angle. > Pippin > Thanking those who referenced the Kingsley canon for her. Mike, for my part, you're very welcome :D From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Fri Jan 18 04:17:49 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 04:17:49 -0000 Subject: just how different? UK = Canada In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180733 > Carol responds: > > All American publishers have what's called "house style," a style of spelling and punctuation used in all their books. That includes Americanizing British spelling and punctuation. British slang is another matter. Unless a word or phrase (like "pot plant" or "pecker") has a different (and somewhat unsavory or off color) meaning in American English, I agree with you that the slang and idiomatic expressions should be retained. But I also think that it would be a good idea to include a British-to-American glossary in the back of each book, along with a list of phrases that might not be immediately comprehensible. (I'm still thrown by some of Ron's expressions even after seven books.) Ideally, an American editor would make a list of terms that American readers (not just children) might find unfamiliar and JKR would provide synonyms or definitions. Or, if she's unfamiliar with the American terms, the American editors could compile a list of definitions or synonyms for her approval, "sweater" for "jumper" and "sneakers" for "trainers" being among the more obvious entries. But "chocolate gateau" and "spotted dick" would require input from JKR herself or a British editor, I would think, considering that such "puddings" (desserts) seldom find a place on American tables or menus. Inquisitive readers, kids especially, would find such a glossary interesting, especially if it's done with a touch of mischievous JKR-style humor. Tiffany: There can also be slang words that have multiple meanings in just one national slang so list of terms would be slang words would be useful in such a case. In the USA, for example, pot can mean one of three things, most of the times. The first is something you put a plant in, the second is something that you cook with, & the third is a drug culture word for marijuana. Also, I had to recall that whenever I saw chips mentioned in the UK canonical novels that they were actually french fries, not the potato chips of the USA. A lot of Ron's expressions & sayings still manage to confuse me after seven books worth of his stuff. I've learned to appreciate JKR's humor more with each book, but it was a slow & steady process at first. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 04:37:21 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 04:37:21 -0000 Subject: just how different? UK = Canada In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180734 > Carol responds: > > But I also think that it would be a good idea to include a > British-to-American glossary in the back of each book, along with > a list of phrases that might not be immediately comprehensible. > (I'm still thrown by some of Ron's expressions even after seven > books.) Mike: Oh yes! I took me forever to discover what Ron meant when he said, "... we're going to be having a *shufti* to see..." I had never heard of someone having a "shufti"?! Though I was pretty sure they weren't trying out some kind of pudding. ;) > Carol: > Inquisitive readers, kids especially, would find such a glossary > interesting, especially if it's done with a touch of mischievous > JKR-style humor. Mike: Yes, wouldn't that have been fun! I guessed what "jumpers" were by the context and already knew the British used "trainers". This thread has made me wonder how many idioms were changed in Philosopher's Stone to make it into the American Sorcerer's Stone? When JKR was writing the first book, she didn't know that it would be picked up by a British publisher, much less make it across the pond to America. Mike, who couldn't stop giggling the first time he read Ron offering Hermione some "spotted dick" ;) From aceworker at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 06:35:21 2008 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:35:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Realistic Ootcomes Message-ID: <490937.64750.qm@web30208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180735 <> Da Jones: One explanation Mike is that magic is simply a talent and a skill and just like in real life not everyone is equally skilled. Most witches and wizards simply do not seem to have ths skill to make a stand even if they wanted too. And the leaders of departments are generally the most skilled at magic. Most likely JKR would say that Umbridge is an extremly poweful witch and that her staff had no possibility of overpowering here even combinded. To paraphase George Carlin even a Goldish can kill a Gorilla but it takes a massive amount of surprise. Most ministry employees seem to be goldfish and Voldemort is the 1000 pound Gorilla in the tank. Imagine a word for instance in which govenmental power was determined solely by the ability to play Basketball. There's no guarantee that playing Basketball equates to good governing skills or even a wish to govern fairly or even for the common good. A world that is governed by an arbitary skill is more adapt to have more leaders like Isiah (spelling) Thomas then Bill Bradleys, or even forgive me Shaq. The wizarding world wants Dumbledore to govern due to his 'heroic history' and magical power, but Dumbledore is wise enough to understand that the power of governance will corrupt him. But Fudge and others are proof that this is not always the case in this world. Magic isn't like having a gun, because in JKR's world everone is armed, but most people have a water pistol while others carry around a full division of artillery. And you can't overthrow a dictator with a water pistol. Even within the DA we see a vast difference in power. Harry is not able to teach everyone the Patronus it appears and there are several scenes that indicate that although equally brave Lavender is no match for her friend Parvati in the power department.Lavender is defeated easily in the battle and almost becomes werewolf bait, while Parvati saves Deans life and can cast a powerful Reducto curse. Not everyone is capable of becoming an auror, even if they have the courage to try. And even if you are hugely courageous a water pistol does you no good. To fight is just to forfit your life against that power. I think many people know what is happening, it is just literally they do not have the ability or the need to resist. Look what happened with the protesting Monks a while back in the real world. Did that government change? No! In thr real world the only time dictatorships seem to fall to unarmed or underarmed civilans is when the Dictatorship becomes so broke that it cannot govern, and cannot even put food on the shelves. Look at history and you will see that it is only when the people face death by hunger that they will risk death by the sword (or the bullet). This is also in my humble opinion why Democracy never really seems to work well in really poor places. There is no compromise possible over bread, if shifting it your electorial enemy means you yourself will starve. If you're needy you are also greedy and voting only works with wants. And when people have little want they have little need for governance (the richest places have the worst voter turnout in general). So its realisitc that Voldemort was able to take and hold power for a time at least, he satisfied the peoples basic needs. And the only want they had was freedom, and tyranny without starvation is not enough (for example the British blockaded the ports and refused trade with America during its revolution, which means that in many places in those more primitive times if bad weather occured hunger was a real threat) so the British were their own worst enemy. Had they simply restored trade and cut some disagreeable taxes, Americans would all my bowing to the Queen even now). Also don't forget that in addition to everything else, Voldemort has the majority of wealth on his side. The old pure-blood families (mostly Slytherin) have immense weatlh. Combinded they drawf Harry's I beleive. Even if some of the wealthy on Harry's side, such as Ernie where spending money convertly for his cause, they couldn't have held them off. The poor may be able to defeat city hall but I just don't beleive they can beat Exxon or BP for that matter. In my opinion it was a fairly realistic and consistent depiction of a coop given the dynamics of the world she presented. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 18 07:36:54 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:36:54 -0000 Subject: Different UK editions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180736 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Pippin" <1kf.lists at ...> wrote: > > > Geoff: > > If you like to follow the link below, I have posted a photo of my > > set of De Luxe editions - they are a good deal more expensive but > > a nice addition to my HP/LOTR bookshelf. > > > > www.geoffbannister.com/images/hpbookcovers.jpg > > > > Pippin Fowler: > Thank you, Geoff. It looks like your set is the amazon.co.uk Special > Edition. I tried to order a used (damaged case) set, but the market > place vendor will not ship to the U.S. I'll see what is available in > Canada. Geoff: It isn't. Some were bought at Waterstones and some at W.H.Smiths. From funkeginger at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 10:35:14 2008 From: funkeginger at yahoo.com (funkeginger) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:35:14 -0000 Subject: Now Rowling's control - It's All True In-Reply-To: <887933.2648.qm@web52711.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180737 > Carol wrote: <<>> > Carol, wondering what the books would have been like if JKR > had been allowed to take her time > > ***Katie : > ...the short answer is - They would have been much > better books, especially DH. Much, much better. funkeginger: I think the Deathly Hallows is still a really good book; it's not my favourite Harry Potter book but I still think it was good. I really liked the ending when you saw them with all their kids, and the fight between Harry and you know who was good; the rest of the book was a bit dry. But that was because he did not go back to Hogwarts and they were living in a tent the whole time, but other than that I think the book was pretty good. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 11:29:37 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:29:37 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: <478FDA49.6060003@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180738 > > a_svirn: > > But if they realise all that, why on earth would they even want to be > > in Slytherin? Or, for that matter, why the WW would want to put up > > with Slytherin House? Slytherin is all about purebloodism and > > Realpolitik, remove both and there would be nothing left. It is one > > thing to forgive or redeem, or whatever the members of, say, SS who > > saw errors of their ways at last, but no one in their right mind > > would want to *reform* SS. So I'd say that Rowling set up a problem > > that has no resolution. You can't change the Nazi ideology into > > something acceptable. You can only renounce it, but in doing so you'd > > have to renounce the Nazi institutions as well. Whereas Rowling > > supposedly expects from Slytherins to change while still remaining > > Slytherins. That can't possibly work. > Irene Malkin: > I disagree here. Just because Rowling does not understand the point of > Slytherin house minus pure-bloodism, does not mean there is not one. > > Troy would not have fallen with the Gryffindor antics of Achilles alone. > They needed Odysseus as well. And surely he was the father of all > Slytherins? a_svirn: No. Slytherin was the father of all Slytherins. Rowling's world is somewhat different from that of Homer. And in her world Salazar Slytherin was a wily power-hungry pure-blood supremacist ? something that Odysseus assuredly wasn't. Heck, the guy didn't even want to conquer Troy! He'd been stalling for as long as he could and came up with the horse stunt so that he could come back to his wife and son. I'd say he was more like Ignotus Perevell ? liked his peace and quiet and privacy and was ready to employ his wits to defend all of the above. There is nothing particularly Slytherin about it. > Irene Malkin: > A famous event in Jewish history, the Metsada siege, ended with the > defenders committing mass suicide rather than surrender. Except for one > guy, Josephus Flavius, who later became a model roman citizen and famous > writer. So the saying goes something like that: "If all the Jews were > like Metsada defenders, there would be no Jews. If all the Jews were > like Josephus Flavius, there would be no Jews." a_svirn: I can't say that I see your point. Josephus Flavius was a man after Slytherin's heart? Perhaps he was. Though I'd say that it is only contributes to the idea that Slytherins are somewhat less than principled. And besides, as you yourself point out it's not like Josephus Flavius contributed anything valuable to ensuring the survival of the Jewish culture. The Jews could and did survive without him; the only survival he ensured with his shrewd cunning was his own. > Irene Malkin: > It's always the balance of different personalities that makes things > viable. Rowling wants her elephant to stand on one leg and us to believe > that it's the only honourable position for the poor beast? Fine, but we > don't have to accept that as a fact of life. a_svirn: I, for one, only discuss facts of canon. And in canon Slytherin house is a hotbed for all the nasty things: from the dark arts to pure- bloodism. Because that's how old Salazar liked it. That's why all those fist-years aspire to be Slytherins. Because they share Salazar's values and ideology. > Irene Malkin: > In one of her recent interviews she said that in the battle of Hogwarts > Slytherins left to get reinforcements, and she says it in a derogatory > manner. a_svirn: I think the less is said of that interview the better. It is not consistent with the book itself, and only serves to confuse things. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 11:58:08 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:58:08 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180739 > > a_svirn: > > Besides, this way it looks like *they* impose their beliefs on > > wizards with impunity. I mean look how happily wizards settled > > into being slave-owners. Why should they give up their beliefs > > to accommodate elves? Unless of course they have no real > > objection to slavery, after all. > > Mike: > I'm not sure that I correctly understand your point here, but I'll > attempt an answer anyway. ;) I beg your pardon if I repeat myself. > > Dobby was the oddball elf. He was the one that spoke of > "enslavement", he was the only one that spoke of "freedom". I think > Dobby's plight was supposed to be a reflection on the Malfoys. Notice > how JKR kept that information from us until the end of CoS? > > The rest of the elves considered their "enchantment" as their being, > their reason d'etre. This "enchantment" can be their originating > condition, despite whatever their subsequent "treatment" was by the > wizards. The rest of the elves treated their possible release as > being "fired", not as achieving their "freedom". > > I think Dumbledore was speaking to this "treatment" by wizards, in > the same way Dobby was lamenting his treatment by the Malfoys. > Despite his different outlook than his fellow elves, Dobby proved by > his negotiations with Dumbledore that as an elf he still was > compelled to serve a master and to seek subservience, even though he > was technically "free". a_svirn: So what? I wasn't discussing elvish point of view. It may be an interesting thing to discuss from the purely ethnographic perspective, but what concerns me here is the wizarding angle. If I think that slavery is abominable, I will not keep a slave only because it's a done thing and they like it just fine. Or at least, I should not. If I did, however, have a slave it would be more than a little hypocritical for me to explain it away by saying that I am only concerned with my slave's needs, or beliefs, or nature or whatever. Because it would be rubbish. If I had a slave, it would be because I would suit me just fine. Suit *me*, not my slave. And I find it revolting that owning slaves is something wizards happily do. > Mike: > I was saying that Goblins, like > elves, were magical creatures with no parallel in the RL. That's the > way I read JKR's description of them. They were greedy, unreasonable, > intelligent, magical creatures (from the wizarding perspective) and > their sense of fair play eluded the wizarding mind. That's about as > far as we were taken into the goblin world, imo. No further judgement > was needed on their condition since they only played a bit part in > this play. a_svirn: Yes, indeed. And notice how little wizards concern themselves with goblins' beliefs and customs, and nature. Wizards do not want to play by their rules, do they? Because it wouldn't suit them. Goblins's notions of ownership clash with those of wizards, but they have no quarrel with elves' notions of happy servitude. So it's all down to wizards, not to the magical creatures. > > > > > Mike: > > > You might as well condemn the WW for keeping the merpeople > > > in the lake. They can't survive outside of that lake, > > > however unfair that is for their freedom. > > > > a_svirn: > > No one *keeps* them in the lake any more than they *keep* > > centaurs in the forest. They *live* there and try to keep their > > habitat safe from the encroaching wizards. > > Mike: > Yes and elves *live* in wizard houses serving wizards. Without their > servitude in the wizard houses, they are just as much fish out of > water as merpeople would be out of the lake. a_svirn: Not exactly. Winky for all her misery did not die, as the merpeople surely would without water. She even got a job. > Mike: > I think too many people are forgetting Winky's plight and the > attitude of every other house elf besides Dobby in trying to > shoehorn the house elf object lesson into being about slavery, and > therefore a failure on JKR's part. > > As for resolution, Pippin brought up a good point: > > >> But as with Slytherin, it is for the Elves to decide what their > goals are, worthy or not. Wizards need to lift the enchantments that > make House Elves punish themselves, but that is a long term goal, > like the cure for lycanthropy. << a_svirn: Well, we didn't get to see wizards lifting the enchantments, did we? So, this good point belongs to the realm of fanfiction. a_svirn From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 18 13:21:56 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:21:56 -0000 Subject: Father Figures Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180740 This interview is about OoP/TMTMNBN, but there's a JKR quote in it--- sort of. The quoted portion in the text is by Michael Goldenberg the screenwriter. ********************************************************************* http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/1/18/writing-order-of-the- phoenix-a-new-interview-with-michael-goldenberg In an early conversation, Rowling talked about Harry's story being, in a sense, a quest for a father. "Jo pointed out that Harry always was secure in his mother's love, but over the course of all of the books, he keeps coming up with flawed father figures," ******************************************************************** I've seen comments from JKR that the books are full of bad fathers, or that the effect of bad fathers is evident in the books, but I don't recall her talking about Harry and father figures. For what it's worth, this comment reminded me of a thread we once had, discussing all the characters who played a father role to Harry. So whether JKR intended it that way, she recognises it as a theme. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 13:43:10 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:43:10 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180741 a_svirn: No. Slytherin was the father of all Slytherins. Rowling's world is somewhat different from that of Homer. And in her world Salazar Slytherin was a wily power-hungry pure-blood supremacist ? something that Odysseus assuredly wasn't. Alla: Heee, agreed. > Irene Malkin: > A famous event in Jewish history, the Metsada siege, ended with the > defenders committing mass suicide rather than surrender. Except for one > guy, Josephus Flavius, who later became a model roman citizen and famous > writer. So the saying goes something like that: "If all the Jews were > like Metsada defenders, there would be no Jews. If all the Jews were > like Josephus Flavius, there would be no Jews." a_svirn: I can't say that I see your point. Josephus Flavius was a man after Slytherin's heart? Perhaps he was. Though I'd say that it is only contributes to the idea that Slytherins are somewhat less than principled. And besides, as you yourself point out it's not like Josephus Flavius contributed anything valuable to ensuring the survival of the Jewish culture. The Jews could and did survive without him; the only survival he ensured with his shrewd cunning was his own. Alla: I am not sure if I understood Irene's point correctly, but I thought that her point was that since she was arguing that all personalities are necessary for the survival of the society ( and in RL - of course I agree), that Josephus Flavius indeed contributed to survival of jewish culture. Now note that I typed jewish culture, NOT jews, but it is related, no? I HATE Flavius. I think he is a stinking traitor, who betrayed his brothers and sisters and when I read the pages in his book when he is trying to justify himself, I wanted to stranggle him. I see NOTHING to admire or respect him about. BUT he did leave us factually true account of the war, right? Don't historians agree on that that while his conclusions should be questioned, the facts are true? So, while I agree with you that he did not contribute to survival of the jews, I think he contributed to the culture. I read it as RL example of slytherin contribution? But I can be wrong. Although again, if this is the contribution Slytherins would be making, I think society would be better off without them. Imagine Lucius Malfoy writing the history of purebloods or something, while serving Voldemort. But I mean, sure in RL ambition and cunning are needed, but I see nothing strange that when connected to purebloodism they are disparaged. JMO, Alla From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 18 14:50:24 2008 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:50:24 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back Message-ID: <741066.59822.qm@web86204.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180742 > > a_svirn: >> Slytherin is all about purebloodism and > > > Realpolitik, remove both and there would be nothing left. > > > Irene Malkin: Not that I mind that terribly, but it's Mikhlin. > > I disagree here. Just because Rowling does not understand the point > of > > Slytherin house minus pure-bloodism, does not mean there is not one. > > > > Troy would not have fallen with the Gryffindor antics of Achilles > alone. > > They needed Odysseus as well. And surely he was the father of all > > Slytherins? > > a_svirn: > No. Slytherin was the father of all Slytherins. Rowling's world is > somewhat different from that of Homer. And in her world Salazar > Slytherin was a wily power-hungry pure-blood supremacist ? something > that Odysseus assuredly wasn't. The hat sells the Slytherin House as cunning and ambitious. My argument is these two qualities do not make a person bad in and of themselves. Your point above seems to be that without pure-blood ideology nothing is left to distinguish Slytherin from other houses? Or did I misunderstand? Heck, the guy didn't even want to > conquer Troy! He'd been stalling for as long as he could and came up > with the horse stunt so that he could come back to his wife and son. > I'd say he was more like Ignotus Perevell ? liked his peace and quiet > and privacy and was ready to employ his wits to defend all of the > above. There is nothing particularly Slytherin about it. And his name is synonymous with cunning for nothing. Sure. :-) > a_svirn: > I can't say that I see your point. Josephus Flavius was a man after > Slytherin's heart? Perhaps he was. Though I'd say that it is only > contributes to the idea that Slytherins are somewhat less than > principled. And besides, as you yourself point out it's not like > Josephus Flavius contributed anything valuable to ensuring the > survival of the Jewish culture. Well, he did. His books are the most authoritative source on history of Judea in that period. My point is that if everyone in a certain culture is Gryffindor, this culture is not viable. > > a_svirn: > I, for one, only discuss facts of canon. And in canon Slytherin house > is a hotbed for all the nasty things: from the dark arts to pure- > bloodism. Because that's how old Salazar liked it. The house takes half-bloods. And the dark arts distinction does not have any canonical meaning for me after book 7. It seems to be now "Everything that Gryffindors do, is OK. Everything that's done to Gryffindors, is dark arts". A bit recursive to be a useful definition for my taste. Again, reiterating my point - the canon seems to suggest that the defining qualities of Slytherin house (cunning and ambition and luck of a certain type of valour) will make it a hotbed for all nasty things besides pure-bloodism: from excessive BMI to receding hairlines, from sexual promiscuity to lack of quidditch success. To use a less controvertial example (hopefully), let's have a look at C.S. Lewis heroes. Even in his world of brave and noble heroes Reepicheep is seen as an extreme case of Gryffindor type of behaviour. In that world it is accepted that you can't make a successful expedition if everyone on board is of this personality - they'd all be gloriously killed in the first port. This is what JKR's world does not get, and this is where it falls flat for me. > > a_svirn: > I think the less is said of that interview the better. It is not > consistent with the book itself, and only serves to confuse things. > Well, for me book 7 is not consistent with the first 6. Am I allowed to disregard it? :-) Irene From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 16:03:27 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:03:27 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: <741066.59822.qm@web86204.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180743 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > My point is that if everyone in a certain culture is Gryffindor, this culture is not viable. Alla: Agreed of course, but is this the point that potterverse is making? I thought that the courage is seen as much needed value during the war and with that I agree definitely. I mean, isn't this normal to expect that when author talks about heroes who try to win the war against evil overlord, the courage will be praised and highly valued? I just do not see how it can be otherwise. IMO of course. Take the movie Beowulf. I hated the movie among other things because I cannot stand what they did with Beowulf character. But would I mind if the story was about some normal character and similar flaws were described? No of course not, but to my mind hero of the myth should be that - HERO, not a coward ( and in Beowulf case as I saw it liar and cheat) Not sure if I am making much sense, but take Slughorn. I find his flight from the DE in HBP to be deeply sympathetic for me. Why? Because I have no idea that had I been into similar situation, whether I would have had enough courage to stand up and fight, BUT I do think that I would not have crossed the certain limit. Namely I do not think that I would have joined the said gang, no matter what. Flavius in my mind crossed the limit that cannot be tolerated no matter what type of personality he is. He betrayed his brothers and sisters. But Slughorn while sympathetic to me, am I surprised that author makes sure he is developing courage? Not at all, because otherwise the war cannot be won, no? Irene Mikhlin: To use a less controversial example (hopefully), let's have a look at C.S. Lewis heroes. Even in his world of brave and noble heroes Reepicheep is seen as an extreme case of Gryffindor type of behaviour. In that world it is accepted that you can't make a successful expedition if everyone on board is of this personality - they'd all be gloriously killed in the first port. This is what JKR's world does not get, and this is where it falls flat for me. Alla: I read Lewis' long time ago and cannot remember much of it except "Lion and witch" and even that because of the movie, so I cannot speak about the example, but again does potterverse not get it? Snape seems to be case at point, he certainly did not fight on the first lines, but he did fight? Dumbledore also seems to be case at point for me - plenty of cunning IMO. And we never did get the confirmation that he was from Gryffindor, no? I mean besides Hermione's speculation? Alla. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Jan 18 17:15:11 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:15:11 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: just how different? UK = Canada References: Message-ID: <00ab01c859f5$afe30710$6501a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180744 >> Carol: >> Inquisitive readers, kids especially, would find such a glossary >> interesting, especially if it's done with a touch of mischievous >> JKR-style humor. > > Mike, who couldn't stop giggling the first time he read Ron offering > Hermione some "spotted dick" ;) Shelley: And even if you knew that a spotted dick was a type of food, sometimes I found it hard (initially) to discern whether something was a British thing, or a Wizarding thing, such as the healer's comment about Ron's spattergroit, which was later used to hide Ron when the trio was camping. Turns out it was a Wizarding disease, but at first I thought it was an old expression like gout or other illness that exists in real life. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 18 17:31:21 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:31:21 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180745 > > a_svirn: > No. Slytherin was the father of all Slytherins. Pippin: But when Slytherin left the school, the Slytherins stayed behind. They broke with their founder when he went too far, just Regulus and Snape broke from Voldemort when they realized he did not respect purity or family. Though Salazar's departure from the House he founded casts a shadow, they are just as brave in defense of their values as Harry is in defense of his. Being power-hungry is a red herring, IMO. *All* the students are there to become more powerful. JKR put the values of liberalism, her own values, into Gryffindor: they are the champions of community and fairness. Naturally she thinks, should push come to shove, that those values should be privileged over the traditionally conservative values of loyalty, purity and family. But that is politics: it has nothing to do with the innate morality of Slytherin House. No one has to be taught to prefer the pure to the impure or to prefer family to strangers. It's interesting that you used the word "disgusting" to refer to House Elves -- that suggests your objection to slavery in the books is more about purity than fairness. Violation of taboo feels wrong even in fiction about imaginary creatures and begs for some ritual of cleansing which the books do not give. But I think that difference is just what JKR wanted Hermione to confront. The House Elf saga *starts* with a cleansing ritual -- Hermione deprives herself of food after she realizes she's been benefitting from the labor of a hundred slaves. Contrast that to Harry's reaction -- the first thing Harry does when he finds out that Dobby is a slave is to ask if anyone can free him. Hermione's ritual accomplished nothing of practical value either for her or the House Elves. She had to learn, like Shaw's barbarian, that the customs of her tribe and island are not the laws of nature. The wizards are unmoved by her vision of slavery as essentially wrong-- it's only when Ron is forced to confront its unfairness, a Gryffindor value, that he begins to see her concern for House Elves as important. There is the same sort of set up for Slytherin itself. Harry initially sees them as tainted, (cf his constant references to Snape's greasy hair) and though Harry himself shakes this feeling off, JKR does not insist that the reader do so. We have to see for ourselves, if we choose, that it's unfair. Harry gives the same choice to his son. Pippin fascinated by an article about the moral instinct in this week's NY Times Sunday magazine. You can find it at nytimes.com. You have to register but it's free. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 18:40:08 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:40:08 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180746 > >>Magpie: > > In the end the founder's story was repeated--Slytherin was always > > a champion of Pureblood supremacy and bloodlines, even if he was > > always also about ambition and cunning (so he's a racist with a > > desire to promote his chosen group even in underhanded ways). He > > was a founder--we don't know why. > > > > There's actually no call on Slytherin whatsoever to change-- > > they are what they are. So we're left with the question asked > > here: why are they suffered to remain? To me it seems like the > > answer to that question is found in the psychology of the WW and > > the author. It's comforting to somebody to have this house in the > > form that it exists, periodically gaining power and then > > symbolically brought low--but never healed or destroyed. > > > >>a_svirn: > I suppose. Only that's ... more than a little unwise of them, is > it? Why would they find recreating the Original Rift over and over > again comforting? Betsy Hp: I was struck by your capitalizing the phrase, "Original Rift". Because I think, in the end, we learn there wasn't really a "rift" at all. I think the presence of Salazar, of Slytherin, was a problem from the get go. (Here's hoping this will make sense. *g*) My pre-DH theory on "how it will all end" depended a great deal on Slytherin being a legitimate Founder, a fellow hopeful in that little band of witches and wizards hoping for a brighter future (cue Whitney Houston). That "something dark" occured and Slytherin left, but that it wasn't due to the innate darkness of Slytherin himself. That there was a good and noble core to his "House Values" that got twisted over time, culminating in Voldemort. That in the destruction of Voldemort that darkness would be cleansed from Slytherin House and therefore Hogwarts and therefore the WW. (Harry restores an upset balance.) But that's not how DH panned out. Salazar Slytherin wasn't a good guy whose message or code became twisted over time: he was always the bad snake in paradise. (Which of course begs the question Magpie raised: How the hell did this guy get to be a Founder in the first place?) Fortunately the three good Founders figured out Slytherin's not-at-all-hidden agenda (bright bulbs those Founders *eg*) and kicked the snake out. But for some odd reason, they left his snake pit behind. End result? Voldemort. But based on that, there was never a "Rift" to be healed. The departure of Salazar was a necessary culling or cleansing or purging. If Voldemort accurately interpreted his fore-father's agenda (and everything in DH says he did) than why, oh why, is JKR keeping the snake pit around? > >>a_svirn: > By maintaining the house of the power-hungry pure-blood > supremacists they ensure transmitting their ideology through > generations, they help to preserve and develop their social > networks. > Betsy Hp: I suspect (though I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure: JKR is remarkably slippery about Slytherin) her idea is that badness is just part of the human experience and so it's silly to try and change it. Which is why the Potter-series ends without any type of healing (a closing of the "Rift" or a purging of the snake pit). Harry doesn't *restore* a balance, he *maintains* one. Slytherin *is* bad. But they're impossible to get rid of, just as bad people will always exist in real life, snakes will always pop into attempts at paradise. IMO, it's a morally lazy way of looking at things, and would have (among other things) left Hitler running rampant, but there are those who feel this way. I guess it's a sort of fundamental interperation of the "fall of man". (Which, actually goes a long way to explaining to me why Slytherin seems so strongly coded as female. The whole woman=evil fallacy. Can't kill them, 'cause then no babies, but we can keep those evil seducers and tricksters *down*.) Voldemort got too big for his britches. He needed to be reminded of his place. Interestingly, it was his refusal to return to his place (feel remorse) that kills him, not Harry. Snape *did* take his place. And in the epilogue we see that Draco is also aware of his place. *That's* why all is well. Slaves are happily picking cotton and the womens are staying quiet and respectful. All is well. Betsy Hp (reminded again why she sees this series as, well, sort of, kind of, evil ) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 19:53:35 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:53:35 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180747 Mike wrote: > > > Dobby was the oddball elf. He was the one that spoke of "enslavement", he was the only one that spoke of "freedom". I think Dobby's plight was supposed to be a reflection on the Malfoys. Notice how JKR kept that information from us until the end of CoS? > The rest of the elves treated their possible release as being "fired", not as achieving their "freedom". > [E]lves *live* in wizard houses serving wizards. Without their > servitude in the wizard houses, they are just as much fish out of > water as merpeople would be out of the lake. > > I think too many people are forgetting Winky's plight and the attitude of every other house elf besides Dobby in trying to shoehorn the house elf object lesson into being about slavery, and therefore a failure on JKR's part. Carol responds; Exactly. It's only when we think of House-elves as human beings and equate their situation with that of human slaves that a problem arises. but if we think of them as imaginary creatures who *like* working for wizards, with problems arising only when an elf is abused (Dobby) or considers his master unworthy of his respect (Kreacher), the imaginary parallel with RL slavery goes away and we can consider what actually goes on in the books. Winky, of course, does not consider herself abused. She's proud to keep her adored master's secrets and considers herself disgraced when she's "freed." Let's look at the "freed" elves, Winky and Dobby. We don't know where or how Dobby lived from the end of CoS to the point in GoF where he shows up with the newly fired Winky at Hogwarts, but during that entire time he was looking for work with a wizarding family, with the proviso that he "wanted paying." Dumbledore, semi-enlightened soul that he was, agrees to pay Dobby (and presumably Winky). Dobby talks DD into giving him *lower* wages and *fewer* days off than DD initially offers. Dobby thrives in the new environment despite being regarded as odd or worse by the other House-Elves; Winky mourns for her master and turns to drink. These are no, of course, the reactions that fired human beings, wizard or Muggle, would have to their situation: most humans would be happy to have a job with good working conditions and certainly would not negotiate for less money and more work time. Dobby likes freedom, but he likes work better. Winky doesn't like freedom at all; she wants to go back to her master and her home. She treats the clothes that symbolize her freedom (read disgrace) with a total disregard bordering on contempt, in contrast to the spotless tea towels of the Hogwarts elves. What alternatives did Dobby and Winky have? Could they have set up house-keeping together in a little home of their own? Evidently not. Even magical beings need money to pay for houses; they can't construct them magically or they would do so. And food also costs money, unless you steal it or eat discarded scraps from a rubbish bin. Freedom is the freedom to seek another job or starve to death. And, had Dobby not found Winky while her clothes were still clean and the reality of her new situation had not yet set in, I think that's what would have happened. She would have died of grief and starvation, perhaps losing her powers along the way like Merope. In short, House-Elves *need* a Wizarding home just as Centaurs need a forest and Merpeople need a lake. They can't live by themselves, at least not successfully and not for long. (Kreacher at least had a home to live in after his mistress died. What he ate, I don't know. He must have had access to the Black family vault to provide good meals for HRH, but maybe that's yet another Flint.) Carol, who thinks that Ron and the Twins had the right idea about House-Elves all along ("They *like* it," meaning that they like working for wizards, as long as they're treated well) From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 18 20:37:00 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:37:00 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180748 > a_svirn: > So what? I wasn't discussing elvish point of view. It may be an > interesting thing to discuss from the purely ethnographic > perspective, but what concerns me here is the wizarding angle. If > I think that slavery is abominable, I will not keep a slave only > because it's a done thing and they like it just fine. Mike: OK, I see your point now, thanks for explaining that. I would agree with your point if I looked upon house elves as slaves. Then it would indeed be wrong to perpetuate their condition simply out of expediancy. I would expect better from a Gryffindor like Hermione than to stand aside and just let slavery continue. And in fact she tries to do that and is shown to be wrong in her initial interpretation of the house elf condition. They are not "slaves". If you (generic) insist on looking upon the house elves as slaves, then you (generic) are making the same mistake that Hermione made. That's not the way to look at them, imo. Hermione finally gets it. She has refocused herself on their treatment, that self-flagellation thing has become her focus. That was the source of her distress during Kreachers Tale. "Stop him -- stop him!" Hermione cried, "Oh, don't you see now how sick it is, the way they've got to obey?"

> a_svirn: > > Well, we didn't get to see wizards lifting the enchantments, > did we? So, this good point belongs to the realm of fanfiction. No, it has not been corrected by the end of DH. But one of our heroes, Hermione, has realized it. And she's informed Ron's and Harry's interpretations. Ron was right about the elves not being slaves, but he was enlightenment to their treatment only comes at the end of DH. Harry has only reached the treat mine right stage, but it's a start. > a_svirn: > Not exactly. Winky for all her misery did not die, as the > merpeople surely would without water. She even got a job. Mike: Admittedly not a perfect analogy. But you can't stop elves from serving wizards. Well, you *can* kick them all out, deny them houses and life's purpose, but to what end? Does Winky's case give you a good feeling as to what would happen to them, especially considering that she *did* get another job? How'd she do in that new job? She was extremely happy to be *free*, was she? How about the other Hogwarts elves, they took kindly to Hermione's anti-slavery preaching, didn't they? Telling elves they are "slaves" is as insulting to them as would be telling merpeople they are fish. House elves existance is to serve wizards, that's who they are. And they can no more deny that than merpeople can deny their need for water. It was NOT a comment on slavery, it was a plea for treating one's inferiors with respect. Nobody is asking you (generic) to respect slavery, it was instead a request to respect the existance of beings that don't hold the same life values as you do. And to improve the treatment of all of them, get those self-punishment enchantments removed. Something admittedly only started by the end of the story. > a_svirn: > Yes, indeed. And notice how little wizards concern themselves with > goblins' beliefs and customs, and nature. Wizards do not want to > play by their rules, do they? Because it wouldn't suit them. > Goblins's notions of ownership clash with those of wizards, but > they have no quarrel with elves' notions of happy servitude. So > it's all down to wizards, not to the magical creatures. Mike: Goblins were shown as greedy and unscrupulous. Griphook was fine with breaking into a Gringotts vault, to let Harry and co. steal whatever thing they wanted, as long as he could get the bigger prize of Gryffindor's sword back. Harry planned a letter if not spirit of the law maneouver. Griphook one upped him by outright double crossing Harry. But Neville drawing the sword out of the Hat in the end signifies who the rightful owners of the sword are. Goblins aren't wizard's servants, that has been repeated throughout. They can take care of themselves and they aren't restricted in using their magic like house elves are. Curious how their biggest beef seems to be that wizards won't share their wandlore, at the same time they insist anything made with by their hand, with their skills is theirs to keep. And they don't seem to be sharing *their* gifts of metalurgy and other craftsmanship. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 18 22:07:47 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:07:47 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180749 > Mike: > > Goblins aren't wizard's servants, that has been repeated throughout. > They can take care of themselves and they aren't restricted in using > their magic like house elves are. Curious how their biggest beef > seems to be that wizards won't share their wandlore, at the same time > they insist anything made with by their hand, with their skills is > theirs to keep. And they don't seem to be sharing *their* gifts of > metalurgy and other craftsmanship. Pippin: There's also no reason why goblins should not be expected to understand or acknowledge wizard notions of ownership. It's not as if the goblins are too primitive or uneducated to grasp that according to human customs when you put a person's name on something you acknowledge that person as the owner. Who put Godric's name on the sword, if not its maker? Is it not demeaning to goblins to suppose that he couldn't have understood what that meant? Pippin From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Fri Jan 18 22:57:57 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:57:57 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180750 > Mike: > > Goblins aren't wizard's servants, that has been repeated throughout. They can take care of themselves and they aren't restricted in using their magic like house elves are. Curious how their biggest beef seems to be that wizards won't share their wandlore, at the same time they insist anything made with by their hand, with their skills is theirs to keep. And they don't seem to be sharing *their* gifts of metalurgy and other craftsmanship. Tiffany: I can't really see why the goblins wouldn't want to their gifts in craftsmanship & metallurgy with others. I also seem to grasp their beef with the wizards not wishing to share their wandlore with them as well. I have a lot respect for some goblins in the Potterverse & WW, potentially as much as some wizards. Goblins can do some great stuff if left to their devices & free to do what they're good at. I've seen plenty of awe-inspiring stuff done by goblins in the canon & can be a formidable threat on either side of a battle. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 00:05:45 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:05:45 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: <741066.59822.qm@web86204.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180751 > > > Irene Malkin: > > Not that I mind that terribly, but it's Mikhlin. a_svirn: Oh, I am sorry! > > a_svirn: > > No. Slytherin was the father of all Slytherins. Rowling's world is > > somewhat different from that of Homer. And in her world Salazar > > Slytherin was a wily power-hungry pure-blood supremacist ??" something > > that Odysseus assuredly wasn't. > > Irene Mikhlin: > The hat sells the Slytherin House as cunning and ambitious. a_svirn: And pure-blood supremacy. It was mentioned in the song; it's the part of the package. > > Irene: My argument is these two qualities do not make a person bad in and of themselves. a_svirn: No, of course, not. But cunning is only one of the Slytherin qualities. And their ambition is qualified as power-hungriness. That's slightly more disturbing. And then, there is pure-bloodism. > Irene: > Your point above seems to be that without pure-blood ideology nothing is left to distinguish Slytherin from other houses? Or did I misunderstand? a_svirn: Well, yes. Cunning isn't something the prospective Slytherins aspire to be. They aspire to be a select elite and they are already cunning enough to know that Slytherin is what helps them to realise this ambition. > >a_svirn: > Heck, the guy didn't even want to > > conquer Troy! He'd been stalling for as long as he could and came up > > with the horse stunt so that he could come back to his wife and son. > > I'd say he was more like Ignotus Perevell ??" liked his peace and quiet > > and privacy and was ready to employ his wits to defend all of the > > above. There is nothing particularly Slytherin about it. > > Irene: > And his name is synonymous with cunning for nothing. Sure. :-) a_svirn: *His* name yes. But Slytherin's name is a byword for bigotry. > > > a_svirn: > > I can't say that I see your point. Josephus Flavius was a man after > > Slytherin's heart? Perhaps he was. Though I'd say that it is only > > contributes to the idea that Slytherins are somewhat less than > > principled. And besides, as you yourself point out it's not like > > Josephus Flavius contributed anything valuable to ensuring the > > survival of the Jewish culture. > > Irene: > Well, he did. His books are the most authoritative source on history of Judea in that period. a_svirn: They were not, however, a part of the Jewish culture. It was a part of Roman culture ant its successors. You wouldn't say that Ambroise's chronicle of the Third Crusade was a part of Arabian culture, would you? > Irene: > My point is that if everyone in a certain culture is Gryffindor, this culture is not viable. a_svirn: Well, there are always Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw. I think any culture can be viable without supremacist ideology. Hopefully. > > > > > a_svirn: > > I, for one, only discuss facts of canon. And in canon Slytherin house > > is a hotbed for all the nasty things: from the dark arts to pure- > > bloodism. Because that's how old Salazar liked it. > Irene: > The house takes half-bloods. And the dark arts distinction does not have any canonical meaning for me after book 7. It seems to be now "Everything that Gryffindors do, is OK. Everything that's done to Gryffindors, is dark arts". A bit recursive to be a useful definition for my taste. a_svirn: I don't like it either. But the way Rowling sets it up I can't see how it can possibly be otherwise. > Irene: > Again, reiterating my point - the canon seems to suggest that the defining qualities of Slytherin house (cunning and ambition and luck of a certain type of valour) will make it a hotbed for all nasty things besides pure-bloodism: from excessive BMI to receding hairlines, from sexual promiscuity to lack of quidditch success. a_svirn: No, canon suggests that a certain type of ambition (being power- hungry, and that's the Hat's term) combined with bigotry can only lead to trouble. And it is a reasonable suggestion, actually. What I find unreasonable is that the same Hat had been selecting cunning power-hungry bigots for centuries so that they could form a select group inside the WW. That's simply daft. > Irene: > To use a less controvertial example (hopefully), let's have a look at C.S. Lewis heroes. Even in his world of brave and noble heroes Reepicheep is seen as an extreme case of Gryffindor type of behaviour. In that world it is accepted that you can't make a successful expedition if everyone on board is of this personality - they'd all be gloriously killed in the first port. This is what JKR's world does not get, and this is where it falls flat for me. a_svirn: I understand what you are saying, and even agree with you ? in general. Where we disagree is that IMO Slytherin isn't only about cunning and ambition. It is also about bigotry, supremacism and Realpolitik. Without them it wouldn't be the House of Slytherin. It would be the house of Ulysses or some such thing. > > > > > a_svirn: > > I think the less is said of that interview the better. It is not > > consistent with the book itself, and only serves to confuse things. > > > Irene: > Well, for me book 7 is not consistent with the first 6. Am I allowed to disregard it? :-) a_svirn: Feel free! From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 00:22:53 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:22:53 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180752 > > a_svirn: > > > > Well, we didn't get to see wizards lifting the enchantments, > > did we? So, this good point belongs to the realm of fanfiction. Mike: > No, it has not been corrected by the end of DH. But one of our > heroes, Hermione, has realized it. And she's informed Ron's and > Harry's interpretations. Ron was right about the elves not being > slaves, but he was enlightenment to their treatment only comes at > the end of DH. Harry has only reached the treat mine right stage, > but it's a start. Montavilla47: Except Ron started out enlightened. It was Ron who *actively* fought Hermione's culturally imperialist attempts to free the elves--not by taking the hats, but by *revealing* them so that the elves had a *choice* about their freedom. Ron didn't see how Dobby was treated by the Malfoys. Had he seen it, I'm sure he would have protested. The first time he *did* see Dobby, he spontaneously and generously gave the elf a pair of nice, new socks. If he didn't get angry about Winky's treatment, it was probably because he felt there were more important worries at the time. Or perhaps it was a reluctance to get in- between a master and servant relationship. That's the whole weirdness of the Ron/Hermione kiss in DH. Ron's position is exactly where it was in CoS and GoF. Elves are happy serving wizards, and they should be treated as well and respected. It's Hermione's position that has changed. And then the other weirdness comes from JKR's statement that the elves were about her take on slavery itself. Because, her takes appears to be that slavery is okay, as long as you don't beat or yell at your slaves and give them the occasional gift. And don't feed them poison. > Mike: > It was NOT a comment on slavery, it was a plea for treating one's > inferiors with respect. Nobody is asking you (generic) to respect > slavery, it was instead a request to respect the existance of beings > that don't hold the same life values as you do. And to improve the > treatment of all of them, get those self-punishment enchantments > removed. Something admittedly only started by the end of the story. Montavilla47: I can buy that. Because sometimes the best way to solve a problem isn't head on, but sideways. For example, one solution to growing population rates is to educate women. Instead of, you know, imposing a limit on the number of children a family can have. So, it doesn't bug me as an adult that the elves aren't freed by the end of DH and that it might happen in small steps. What bugs me is the feeling I get that we're supposed to cheer because Ron suddenly cares what happens to the elves. Why? Because there's nothing sudden about it. He's been like that all along. It's not a change at all. And Harry actually goes backward. Unless his journey is to go from a skewed perspective on elves (elves shouldn't have to serve wizards) to a proper one (its okay for elves to serve wizards). > > a_svirn: > > Yes, indeed. And notice how little wizards concern themselves with > > goblins' beliefs and customs, and nature. Wizards do not want to > > play by their rules, do they? Because it wouldn't suit them. > > Goblins's notions of ownership clash with those of wizards, but > > they have no quarrel with elves' notions of happy servitude. So > > it's all down to wizards, not to the magical creatures. > > Mike: > Goblins were shown as greedy and unscrupulous. Griphook was fine with > breaking into a Gringotts vault, to let Harry and co. steal whatever > thing they wanted, as long as he could get the bigger prize of > Gryffindor's sword back. Harry planned a letter if not spirit of the > law maneouver. Griphook one upped him by outright double crossing > Harry. But Neville drawing the sword out of the Hat in the end > signifies who the rightful owners of the sword are. Montavilla47: Griphook wasn't fine with breaking into a Gringotts vault. He was very unhappy about it--and did it on the understanding that Harry was looking for something specific. Mike: > Goblins aren't wizard's servants, that has been repeated throughout. > They can take care of themselves and they aren't restricted in using > their magic like house elves are. Curious how their biggest beef > seems to be that wizards won't share their wandlore, at the same time > they insist anything made with by their hand, with their skills is > theirs to keep. And they don't seem to be sharing *their* gifts of > metalurgy and other craftsmanship. Montavilla47: Actually, Goblins remind me of commercial writers and artists. What they seem to be giving people with their weapons and such is First Run Rights. Then, like any author or artist, they expect the party to come back and negotiate for second runs or subsidiary rights. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 00:46:48 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:46:48 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180753 > Mike: > OK, I see your point now, thanks for explaining that. I would agree > with your point if I looked upon house elves as slaves. Then it would > indeed be wrong to perpetuate their condition simply out of > expediancy. I would expect better from a Gryffindor like Hermione > than to stand aside and just let slavery continue. And in fact she > tries to do that and is shown to be wrong in her initial > interpretation of the house elf condition. They are not "slaves". a_svirn: Oh, come now. Of course they are. They are the property of wizards, completely divested of personal rights and freedom, entirely subject to their will. All of the above means slaves. > Mike: > If you (generic) insist on looking upon the house elves as slaves, > then you (generic) are making the same mistake that Hermione made. a_svirn: Which is what? > Mike: > That's not the way to look at them, imo. Hermione finally gets it. > She has refocused herself on their treatment, that self- flagellation > thing has become her focus. That was the source of her distress > during Kreachers Tale. "Stop him -- stop him!" Hermione cried, "Oh, > don't you see now how sick it is, the way they've got to obey?" >

a_svirn: And that's not slavery because? > > > > a_svirn: > > > > Well, we didn't get to see wizards lifting the enchantments, > > did we? So, this good point belongs to the realm of fanfiction. > > Mike: > No, it has not been corrected by the end of DH. But one of our > heroes, Hermione, has realized it. And she's informed Ron's and > Harry's interpretations. Ron was right about the elves not being > slaves, a_svirn: When did he ever say so? He only said that they *like* being what they are. Which is slaves. > > Mike: but he was enlightenment to their treatment only comes at > the end of DH. Harry has only reached the treat mine right stage, > but it's a start. a_svirn: What exactly does she realises? The only thing she realised is that they aren't like humans. I don't remember her saying anything about their not being slaves. Or about lifting the enchantments. > Mike: > But you can't stop elves from > serving wizards. Well, you *can* kick them all out, deny them houses > and life's purpose, but to what end? a_svirn: You can, however, stop wizards from *owning* them. It is their nature to serve? OK, I get it. Is it in the wizading nature to own, then? I hope, not. Then again, perhaps it is. > Mike: > Telling elves they are "slaves" is as insulting to them as would be > telling merpeople they are fish. House elves existance is to serve > wizards, that's who they are. And they can no more deny that than > merpeople can deny their need for water. a_svirn: Eh? For one thing it was an elf who first mentioned their enslavement. Besides, it is true, while calling merpeople fish, or centaurs nags is not. And my point is that it should be insulting for wizards to *be* slave-owners. > > > a_svirn: > > Yes, indeed. And notice how little wizards concern themselves with > > goblins' beliefs and customs, and nature. Wizards do not want to > > play by their rules, do they? Because it wouldn't suit them. > > Goblins's notions of ownership clash with those of wizards, but > > they have no quarrel with elves' notions of happy servitude. So > > it's all down to wizards, not to the magical creatures. > > Mike: > Goblins were shown as greedy and unscrupulous. Griphook was fine with > breaking into a Gringotts vault, to let Harry and co. steal whatever > thing they wanted, as long as he could get the bigger prize of > Gryffindor's sword back. Harry planned a letter if not spirit of the > law maneouver. Griphook one upped him by outright double crossing > Harry. But Neville drawing the sword out of the Hat in the end > signifies who the rightful owners of the sword are. > > Goblins aren't wizard's servants, that has been repeated throughout. > They can take care of themselves and they aren't restricted in using > their magic like house elves are. Curious how their biggest beef > seems to be that wizards won't share their wandlore, at the same time > they insist anything made with by their hand, with their skills is > theirs to keep. And they don't seem to be sharing *their* gifts of > metalurgy and other craftsmanship. a_svirn: We are veering from the point though. I wasn't trying to say that Goblins were mistreated (though it might even be the case). What I say is that wizards are less than ready to conform to their nature and culture (for whatever reasons). They are, however perfectly happy to accommodate elves' nature. Which means that in their dealing with the magical creatures their natures, cultures, and wellbeing aren't wizards' real concern. They are only concerned of their own, so that argument of the natures of magical creatures is really not that relevant. Wizards own elves because they want slaves, not because elves want to serve. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jan 19 01:44:38 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 01:44:38 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180754 > > Mike: > > If you (generic) insist on looking upon the house elves as slaves, > > then you (generic) are making the same mistake that Hermione made. > > a_svirn: > Which is what? Magpie: The same one that JKR makes, apparently, because she says: "I would hope that [the series] has made people think, I mean I do not write the books thinking what is my message for today, what is my moral, that is not how I set out to write a book at all. I am not trying to criticise or make speeches to you in any way, but at the same time, it would be great if the people thought about bullying behaviour or racism. The house elves is really for slavery, isn't it, the house elves are slaves, so that is an issue that I think we probably all feel strongly about enough in this room already." The house elves is for slavery--the same slavery that we in the real world are assumed to feel strongly about already.The house elves are slaves. Ron's view, I agree, hasn't changed. He thinks they like being slaves and has no problem with slavery itself in their case, at least, we know. He also thinks a slave owner shouldn't abuse his slaves. That's not anti-slavery. I agree the question for Wizards isn't whether or not house elves are right to want to be slaves, but whether it is right for them to own slaves. I don't think one can be a slave or own a slave without that having an effect on the person. > > Mike: > > Telling elves they are "slaves" is as insulting to them as would be > > telling merpeople they are fish. House elves existance is to serve > > wizards, that's who they are. And they can no more deny that than > > merpeople can deny their need for water. > > a_svirn: > Eh? For one thing it was an elf who first mentioned their > enslavement. Besides, it is true, while calling merpeople fish, or > centaurs nags is not. And my point is that it should be insulting for > wizards to *be* slave-owners. Magpie: Agreed. I don't think most house elves would consider it an insult to be called a slave at all--on the contrary, it's exactly the position they demand. Whether or not they call themselves "slaves" or simply "house elves" we can't get around that they like being slaves by definition--not just service providers or helpers (only Dobby wants to be those things and *not* a slave, making the same distinction). In order to not be disgraced they need to be owned and not get anything in return for what they do. And the Trio ultimately accept the advantages of this to themselves. Harry starts out a kid instinctively against anybody being owned with Dobby--and continues to respect Dobby as a free elf. However with Kreacher he goes from never wanting to have anything to do with him, to using him once in a pinch (against Kreacher's wishes by using his magical power as master), to enjoying regular house elf/master relations once Kreacher's work gets better and Kreacher gets more pleasant. > a_svirn: What I > say is that wizards are less than ready to conform to their nature > and culture (for whatever reasons). They are, however perfectly happy > to accommodate elves' nature. Which means that in their dealing with > the magical creatures their natures, cultures, and wellbeing aren't > wizards' real concern. They are only concerned of their own, so that > argument of the natures of magical creatures is really not that > relevant. Wizards own elves because they want slaves, not because > elves want to serve. Magpie: I agree. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 01:51:50 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 01:51:50 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180755 > Magpie: > The same one that JKR makes, apparently, because she says: > > "I would hope that [the series] has made people think, I mean I do > not write the books thinking what is my message for today, what is my > moral, that is not how I set out to write a book at all. I am not > trying to criticise or make speeches to you in any way, but at the > same time, it would be great if the people thought about bullying > behaviour or racism. The house elves is really for slavery, isn't it, > the house elves are slaves, so that is an issue that I think we > probably all feel strongly about enough in this room already." > > The house elves is for slavery--the same slavery that we in the real > world are assumed to feel strongly about already.The house elves are > slaves. Alla: Well, yes, except it is not in the book, isn't it? From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 05:32:00 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:32:00 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180756 > a_svirn: > Oh, come now. Of course they are. They are the property of > wizards, completely divested of personal rights and freedom, > entirely subject to their will. All of the above means slaves. Mike: Then since merpeople swim, feed, and live under the water, can't survive out of it, they are fish. Everything that merpeople are, when translated into the real world like you are doing with elves, means fish. You are imposing real world values on mythical creatures, which of necessity doesn't make your imposition the only choice. I realize I'm asking you to suspend your disbelief, but isn't that what we're doing when we step into the magical world of the Potterverse? You look at what the story leads you to believe, I see differently. I'm not saying you are wrong, I just ask you if there was suppose to be some object lesson regarding elves, which you apparently think there is, what is the lesson the story tells? Was it that slavery is a good thing? Or was it to respect and allow the non-human values of these non-humans, and therefore work to improve their condition within the framework of those values? That one cannot go around imposing one's own values on other beings, especially in a world filled with magical creatures. BTW, I'm not denying you can come away with the former, I'm only suggesting that my coming away with the latter is just as valid. > a_svirn: > And that's not slavery because? Mike: Because slavery is a human construct. They're not humans, they don't accept that definition of their condition. (All except Dobby, the exception that proves the rule). > > Mike: > > Ron was right about the elves not being slaves, > a_svirn: > When did he ever say so? He only said that they *like* being what > they are. Which is slaves. Mike: It was that attitude of Ron's that said so, for me. He accepted their condition from the beginning, as Montavilla47 so eloquently pointed out in her post up thread. > Magpie: > The same one that JKR makes, apparently, because she says: > > > > The house elves is for slavery--the same slavery that we in the > real world are assumed to feel strongly about already.The house > elves are slaves. Mike: Yep, and the Slytherins came thundering back with Slughorn. Wasn't that in another of her interviews? But what did canon tell you? I've been consistent in my approach to JKR interviews. I accept none as canon, either before or after DH, whether they help or hurt my argument. I only ask for the same in arguments opposing mine. > > a_svirn: > > Eh? For one thing it was an elf who first mentioned their > > enslavement. Besides, it is true, while calling merpeople fish, > > or centaurs nags is not. Mike: Answered above. And why can't a centaur be called a nag? It's just as much a derogatory term as "slave". > > a_svirn: > > And my point is that it should be insulting for > > wizards to *be* slave-owners. Mike: And my point would be that if house elves are not categorized as slaves, then wizards are not slave-owners. > Magpie: > > In order to not be disgraced they need to be owned and > not get anything in return for what they do. And the Trio > ultimately accept the advantages of this to themselves. Mike: Or the Trio ultimately accept house elves for who they are, deciding not to impose Hermione's original value system on them. Hermione was decidely repulsed at Kreacher having to punish himself. She has learned that she can't improve the elves lot by freeing them, but instead by eliminating the self-punishment aspect which, I assume, was what wizards contributed to the house elf condition. (Speculating - that assumption) > Magpie: > Harry starts out a kid instinctively against anybody being owned > with Dobby--and continues to respect Dobby as a free elf. Mike: As I said, Dobby is the exception. Also, Harry starts out not knowing anything of the WW. Though Harry's instincts are noble, they are not helpful for house elves. That Dobby was the first elf he met, only clouds the situation. But he seems to cotton Winky's perspective. It's just that he has more important things on his mind than house elves for most of the series, so I don't blame him. > Magpie: > However with Kreacher he goes from never wanting to have anything > to do with him, to using him once in a pinch (against Kreacher's > wishes by using his magical power as master), to enjoying regular > house elf/master relations once Kreacher's work gets better and > Kreacher gets more pleasant. Mike: And Kreacher was disgusted with this change in Harry, was he? So Harry accepts the ways of this world, vastly improves his relationship with Kreacher, and I'm supposed to think that's a bad thing?! > > a_svirn: > > What I say is that wizards are less than ready to conform > > to their [goblin's] nature and culture (for whatever reasons). > > They are, however perfectly happy to accommodate elves' nature. > > Which means that in their dealing with the magical creatures > > their natures, cultures, and wellbeing aren't wizards' real > > concern. They are only concerned of their own, so that > > argument of the natures of magical creatures is really not that > > relevant. Wizards own elves because they want slaves, not > > because elves want to serve. Mike: Bill, who works with goblins, seems to have a good grasp of their nature. I'm not sure it's fair to take the understanding of three teenage wizards and extrapolate that to the whole WW. That the WW seems less than empathetic to the other magical creatures comes from things like Sirius' rants against people like Umbridge. (And Crouch, and Dumbledore's pronouncements). It also comes from Griphook's self serving (and I might add, hypocritical) position on goblin-wizard relations. Griphook flattered Harry by telling him he was different, but he treated Harry the same as he would any other wizard, in the end. Is that the type of culture that wizards should endeavor to understand and empathize with? That wizards might have deluded themselves into believing they are superior (witness the Magical Creatures fountain), I readily see as entirely possible. But remember, that fountain is in the MoM. And the Ministry has not shown itself to be a reliable indicator of the wider wizarding continuum. IOW, you might be conflating that paradigm of virtue, the MoM and all it's ridiculous rules and regulations (and it's Crouches and Umbridges), with the non-officious wizards like Arthur and Bill when you condemn their motives for elf ownership. That the MoM would only see elves as slaves, I've no doubt. But I'm not so sure that the rest of the WW takes that narrow view. (Of course, if only the Malfoys and the Ministry types own elves, all bets are off ). Closing out for me, I don't accept the view that I have to regard this magical world with my real world glasses. I didn't read this series to be informed on real world considerations. I don't care what JKR may have intended as real world parallels, if that's not the way the story reads to me, then those intentions came to naught. I cannot help thinking of witches and wizards as humans, as clearly they are magical humans. So I will almost always ascribe human emotions and motivations to those characters. But the rest of the magical creatures are not, so I refuse to be confined to human constructs when trying to figure them out. And if *I'm* not going to be thusly confined, I likewise will not require the human characters to be. Mike From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 07:31:29 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:31:29 -0000 Subject: Realistic Ootcomes In-Reply-To: <490937.64750.qm@web30208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180757 > Da Jones: > > One explanation Mike is that magic is simply a talent and a skill > and just like in real life not everyone is equally skilled. > Most witches and wizards simply do not seem to have ths skill to > make a stand even if they wanted too. And the leaders of > departments are generally the most skilled at magic. Most likely > JKR would say that Umbridge is an extremly poweful witch and that > her staff had no possibility of overpowering here even combinded. Mike: Oh yeah DJ, I definitely ascribe to the differing degrees of power, that you're describing here. Sirius' whole "powerfully magical" speech he gave in GoF. More on Umbridge v the staff later. > Da Jones: > > Imagine a world for instance in which govenmental power was determined solely by the ability to play Basketball. There's no guarantee that playing Basketball equates to good governing skills or even a wish to govern fairly or even for the common good. A world that is governed by an arbitary skill is more [likely] to have leaders like Isiah (spelling) Thomas then Bill Bradleys, or even forgive me Shaq. Mike: I like the analogy. I can very much believe that the MoM is poopulated with powerfully magical wizards that are equally inept in proper governance. (And you spelled Zeke's first name correctly. Take it from a Piston's fan. ) > Da Jones: > > Even within the DA we see a vast difference in power. Harry is not able to teach everyone the Patronus it appears and there are several scenes that indicate that although equally brave, Lavender is no match for her friend Parvati in the power department. Mike: Well, let's take a look at just Harry's Hogwarts class. It seems that other than Lavender, the rest seem reasonable adept at magic. Most of them demonstrate an ability to fight competently, if not extravagently well. This includes the Huffs, Claws and Slyths, regardless of which side they're on. And these are all still students. I'm sure one-on-one they're not all, or even most, going to win a fight, but two or three on one, I'd bet on them. Plus, look who they're fighting against in the BoH. And let's not forget Molly v. Bella. Did you ever get the impression that Molly was powerfully magical before this? I know I didn't. What I'm saying is that I think you may be selling the common wizard short. Sure, individually they may not be that powerful, but team them up or give them overwhelming numbers and I think only a wizard of Dumbledore's or Voldemort's ability could withstand their onslaught. Just look what happened when the reinforcements, common wizarding folk, came storming over the walls and rained down on Voldemort and his DEs. > Da Jones: > > > I think many people know what is happening, it is just literally > they do not have the ability or the need to resist. Mike: It's not that I don't believe a coup could happen quickly, nor that people might then take their time to size up the situation to assess their odds and discover who's with them. It's just that with such a small populace, I, like you, think the people *were* aware what was going on around them. And they've been through a similar situation not that long ago, with the same enemy. How can they not recognize the same symptoms (Imperiused people) or realize who the obvious turncoats (Umbridge) and infiltrators (Runcorn & Yaxley) are? I don't buy them not having the "need" to resist, especially not for people like Reg Cattermole. > Da Jones: > > > This is also in my humble opinion why Democracy never really seems to work well in really poor places. There is no compromise possible over bread, if shifting it your electorial enemy means you yourself will starve. If you're needy you are also greedy and voting only works with wants. And when people have little want they have little need for governance (the richest places have the worst voter turnout in general). Mike: OK, first of all, I'm not sure how this applies to our Potterverse. There doesn't seem to be a lot of starving wizards when Voldemort takes over. Secondly, I'm not following your last two sentences. You seem to be saying that starving people don't have any use for governmental interplay. But then you say that rich people don't bother to vote either. Since that's clearly contradictory, I must not be getting your point. > Da Jones: > So its realisitc that Voldemort was able to take and hold power for a time at least, he satisfied the peoples basic needs. And the only want they had was freedom, and tyranny without starvation is not enough Mike: Except their basic needs and more were satisfied before Voldemort's coup. I also don't believe that starvation of the populace is a necessary ingredient for the overthrow of a dictatorship. If that were the case, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China would have rose up many times during those failed 5-year plans. Instead, communism was overthrown in Russia in the early 90s. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never had the impression that the Russian people were starving then, at least not as greatly as in other times. There is also your following example. > Da Jones: (for example the British blockaded the ports and refused trade with America during its revolution, which means that in many places in those more primitive times if bad weather occured hunger was a real threat) so the British were their own worst enemy. Had they simply restored trade and cut some disagreeable taxes, Americans would all be bowing to the Queen even now. Mike: But of course the American revolution began in a time of plenty. It was the King trying to reduce their wealth that set it off. (Not unfairly, imo, but definitely imprudently). And once started, it was too late to reverse. (Sorry, you can keep your Queen. In fact, you're one of the few countries left that still does keep a Queen.) > Da Jones: > > The poor may be able to defeat city hall but I just don't beleive they can beat Exxon or BP for that matter. In my opinion it was a fairly realistic and consistent depiction of a coup given the dynamics of the world she presented. Mike: Again, how does this relate to the Potterverse? Who are these poor? And who was Exxon and BP? Money may matter in politics, but it has no affect on magic. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 16:05:51 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:05:51 -0000 Subject: House-Elves again (Was: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180758 a_svirn: > What I say is that wizards are less than ready to conform to their nature and culture (for whatever reasons). They are, however perfectly happy to accommodate elves' nature. Which means that in their dealing with the magical creatures their natures, cultures, and wellbeing aren't wizards' real concern. They are only concerned of their own, so that argument of the natures of magical creatures is really not that relevant. Wizards own elves because they want slaves, not because elves want to serve. > > Magpie: > I agree. Carol responds: It works both ways, doesn't it? If House-Elves didn't want to serve, they'd never have started working for wizards in the first place. As far as we know, the first wizard elf-owner didn't go out and capture one in the wild or steal him from his own house. Folklore tells us that the elves (or hobgoblins or whatever name we put on them) voluntairly came to work for humans without pay (except food?) and left when they were given clothes. That's the tradition that JKR is working with and has altered slightly for her own purposes. Elves, at least those who are working for humans, have what they want and need: work, food, shelter, and tea towels in place of clothing. They can apparently magically keep themselves clean. And they don't need money. Dobby spends his for socks, but he doesn't *need* all those socks. (We humans probably don't need all the possessions we acquire, either, but that's beside the point.) If House-Elves don't work for humans, cleaning and cooking and doing the other things they're naturally good at (domestic skills), what, exactly, are they supposed to do? Go and work for goblin families, where they're likely to be despised and abused and very unlikely to be paid? Go and work for a nonexistant House-Elf family? Set up their own society, which they're wholly unprepared, unwilling, and perhaps constitutionally unable to do? They're not human. They don't think or act like humans. They don't want to *be* human. They don't need wands to do magic. They can join a common cause and fight for the good wizards if they decide to. Surely, they could have simply left Hogwarts en masse when it was temporarily without a headmaster had they so chosen. But what would they do? Where would they go? They're happy at Hogwarts, and the only alternative would be to go wandering the WW, homeless and jobless, looking for wizarding families to take them in, in which case they'd probably be less well off than they are now. The only thing House-Elves need is a lifting of the enchantment that makes them punish themselves when they disobey an order or speak ill of their masters. They doesn't want paying, miss. Or "freedom," either. *Of course* wizards are perfectly happy to accommodate the House-Elves nature. (Note the name: House-Elves. They belong in houses. Wizard's houses, as they don't seem to build their own.) And House-Elves are perfectly happy to accomodate the Wizards. It's a mutually beneficial relationship unless the House-Elves are abused. And that's where Hermione's focus is now that she finally understands House-Elf psychology. Carol, noting that a rebellious House-Elf can do a pretty good job of making a psychologically abusive master unhappy, if Kreacher is any indication From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 19 16:27:41 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:27:41 -0000 Subject: Realistic Ootcomes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180759 Mike: > > What I'm saying is that I think you may be selling the common wizard > short. Sure, individually they may not be that powerful, but team > them up or give them overwhelming numbers and I think only a wizard > of Dumbledore's or Voldemort's ability could withstand their > onslaught. Just look what happened when the reinforcements, common > wizarding folk, came storming over the walls and rained down on > Voldemort and his DEs. > Pippin: The only reason Voldemort didn't call in reinforcements at Hogwarts is that he thought he'd won already. But there were loads of dementors he could have summoned, loyal to him because he allows them to breed and creates their favored habitat, and that whole lake full of inferi too. I shudder to think what would have happened if Voldemort had still had his full powers and Harry had been wrong about the wand. The difference between fighting wizards and fighting a conventional modern war is that it's hard to take control of the war machine when each wizard is a war machine all by himself. Voldemort had to be defeated personally or he'd just find more servants to replace those he'd lost. As long as they believed he couldn't be beaten, there'd be wizards and others willing to serve him. > > > Da Jones: > > > > > > I think many people know what is happening, it is just literally > > they do not have the ability or the need to resist. > > Mike: > And they've been through a similar situation not that long ago, with > the same enemy. How can they not recognize the same symptoms > (Imperiused people) or realize who the obvious turncoats (Umbridge) > and infiltrators (Runcorn & Yaxley) are? I don't buy them not having > the "need" to resist, especially not for people like Reg Cattermole. > Pippin: Consider the number of dead in Moody's photo, and Lupin's statement that The Order had been outnumbered. Most wizards survived the first war by _not_ fighting. As for Reg Cattermole, how many like him are there? We know that being a Muggleborn was not the first step on the ladder to Ministry success. I don't suppose being married to a Muggleborn was much better. Further to Umbridge, I don't think she was that great as a witch. Her power lay in attaching herself to powerful protectors and in being sneaky and ruthless enough to get the things they wanted done without their having to know how she'd managed it. But consider her regime at Hogwarts. McGonagall or Flitwick could have beaten her, Dumbledore *did* beat her. But then what happened? Dumbledore knew the Ministry wouldn't take his rebellion lying down. His choices were to go on the run or turn Hogwarts into a battleground. The situation for anyone who rebelled at the ministry would be the same, only instead of children as de facto hostages, there'd be millions of Muggle Londoners. Since Voldemort wouldn't really care how many children or Muggles got killed, the situation could only work to his advantage. Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 16:33:29 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:33:29 -0000 Subject: Realistic Ootcomes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180760 > Mike: > And let's not forget Molly v. Bella. Did you ever get the impression > that Molly was powerfully magical before this? I know I didn't. zgirnius: I long suspected it. Heredity. Did you suspect it of Arthur? They produced two Head Boys, two Quidditch Stars, the Twins, and Ginny of the Powerful Bat Bogey Hex (one of the Quidditch stars as well). Ron appears to have been the least remarkable of their kids, in terms of magical power/ability. > Mike: > What I'm saying is that I think you may be selling the common wizard > short. Sure, individually they may not be that powerful, but team > them up or give them overwhelming numbers and I think only a wizard > of Dumbledore's or Voldemort's ability could withstand their > onslaught. Just look what happened when the reinforcements, common > wizarding folk, came storming over the walls and rained down on > Voldemort and his DEs. zgirnius: In an earlier post, you were attempting a contrast between a coup among Muggles, and one among Wizards. (In suggesting Dolores's office workers should simply rise up against her). Have you rethought that supposed difference? Because what you say above is equally true of Muggles. Enough unarmed Muggles can take down even a well-armed one, if they don't worry about getting a few among their number shot in the process. But of course, they do. And I don't see why Wizards should be any different. Both can, under the right circumstances, be brought to a point where they are willing to take that chance (as the Battle of Hogwarts illustrates in the Potterverse), but it is not, IMO, the default mode of either common Muggles, or common Wizards. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jan 19 16:41:25 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:41:25 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180761 > > a_svirn: > > Oh, come now. Of course they are. They are the property of > > wizards, completely divested of personal rights and freedom, > > entirely subject to their will. All of the above means slaves. > > Mike: > Then since merpeople swim, feed, and live under the water, can't > survive out of it, they are fish. Magpie: Actually, there's more to being a fish than those things.:-) Mike: what is the lesson the story tells? Was it that slavery is > a good thing? Or was it to respect and allow the non-human values > of these non-humans, and therefore work to improve their condition > within the framework of those values? That one cannot go around > imposing one's own values on other beings, especially in a world > filled with magical creatures. Magpie: But as a_svirn has pointed out, this isn't about house elf values since Wizards don't respect the values of all magical races just because they are the values of the magical race. As to what it says about slavery, it certainly says that slavery isn't a bad thing (and actually can be construed as a good thing) if you have a willing slave. The advantages to having a slave are certainly shown in a guilt-free way. Iow, it shows that in some situations there's nothing inherently wrong with being the master to a slave. It might lead to other abuses, but the master/slave relationship is not in itself a moral problem for the slave master. > > Magpie: > > The same one that JKR makes, apparently, because she says: > > > > > > > > The house elves is for slavery--the same slavery that we in the > > real world are assumed to feel strongly about already.The house > > elves are slaves. > > Mike: > Yep, and the Slytherins came thundering back with Slughorn. Wasn't > that in another of her interviews? But what did canon tell you? Magpie: I'm not using that quote as canon, but since we were talking about what the story "is" it seemed like a statement of the author's intention here seemed relevent. Dobby calls himself a "free elf" and other elves are freaked out by him because he is a "free elf," the opposite of a slave. They also use the word "Master." The elves' own language doesn't indicate a different understanding. More importantly in this case, the *wizards* consider them slaves. Whatever the mindset of the elves, who are not the pov characters, the Wizards make no bones about seeing them as slaves and don't come to some new understanding that from their (the Wizards') pov they're something else. Wizards are humans and have the same understanding of the human construct of slavery that we do. That's why the question isn't whether house elves are wrong to want to be what they are-- whether or not a house elf truly understands himself to be a slave because that's a human construct that they don't understand, the Wizards absolutely understand them as slaves in the same way readers do. > > Magpie: > > > > In order to not be disgraced they need to be owned and > > not get anything in return for what they do. And the Trio > > ultimately accept the advantages of this to themselves. > > Mike: > Or the Trio ultimately accept house elves for who they are, deciding > not to impose Hermione's original value system on them. > > Hermione was decidely repulsed at Kreacher having to punish himself. > She has learned that she can't improve the elves lot by freeing them, > but instead by eliminating the self-punishment aspect which, I > assume, was what wizards contributed to the house elf condition. > (Speculating - that assumption) Magpie: And they also agree to own a slave. I do of course understand that house elf nature is at play and that we've seen that just freeing them creates problems for them which is different from it is with humans. Hermione actually doesn't say anything abuot eliminating the self-punishment which there's really no reason to assume is the work of Wizards and not house elves, since we don't know. But however much one sympathizes with Hermione's dilemma about house elves' inability to be freed without suffering, from her pov she embraces being a slave owner and merely holds herself up to what she considers "good slaveowner" behavior. She's not cruel to the slaves, but she accepts her place as the one being waited on and who has all the power. She doesn't compromise, for instance, by not freeing Kreacher but also never taking advantage of him for her own benefit (iow, not freeing him but also not becoming a master). > > Magpie: > > Harry starts out a kid instinctively against anybody being owned > > with Dobby--and continues to respect Dobby as a free elf. > Mike: > As I said, Dobby is the exception. Also, Harry starts out not knowing > anything of the WW. Though Harry's instincts are noble, they are not > helpful for house elves. That Dobby was the first elf he met, only > clouds the situation. But he seems to cotton Winky's perspective. > It's just that he has more important things on his mind than house > elves for most of the series, so I don't blame him. Magpie: He certainly does cloud the situation--and it's the author clouding it! Our first introductions to house elves is exactly like human slavery. If we were only talking about CoS we'd have no disagreement that they are like humanoid slaves. But of course later he sees that they aren't human and want to be this way, and does not share Hermione's desire to force them to be unhappy for his principles. > > Magpie: > > However with Kreacher he goes from never wanting to have anything > > to do with him, to using him once in a pinch (against Kreacher's > > wishes by using his magical power as master), to enjoying regular > > house elf/master relations once Kreacher's work gets better and > > Kreacher gets more pleasant. > > Mike: > And Kreacher was disgusted with this change in Harry, was he? So > Harry accepts the ways of this world, vastly improves his > relationship with Kreacher, and I'm supposed to think that's a bad > thing?! Magpie: You don't have to, but I do. Because you're assuming that Kreacher not being a slave in Kreacher's eyes means that Harry isn't a slave owner and I disagree. Sure Kreacher is perfectly happy with Harry actively acting like a master. Good for Kreacher. But I think looking at Harry as an individual it's a personal moral decline. Maybe not some huge thing that's immediately apparent, but Kreacher's being fundamentally than a human slave doesn't, imo, make Harry fundamentally different from human slavemasters. In some ways he is, but not in all ways. > Mike: > Bill, who works with goblins, seems to have a good grasp of their Griphook flattered Harry by telling him he was different, > but he treated Harry the same as he would any other wizard, in the > end. Is that the type of culture that wizards should endeavor to > understand and empathize with? Magpie: I think the point is just that Wizards can pick and choose which type of culture they should endeavor to understand and empathize with, period. And that they make that decision based on what suits them better. So it's not like there's a feeling of respecting each culture equally--they don't. In fact, often it's considered a good thing for them to try to impose their own views on other cultures, not just with Goblins. Mike: That the MoM would only > see elves as slaves, I've no doubt. But I'm not so sure that the rest > of the WW takes that narrow view. (Of course, if only the Malfoys and > the Ministry types own elves, all bets are off ). Magpie: I'm not sure why not. We've got many Wizards in canon, and every one who gives a view on house elves that I can remember sees them as slaves, even the ones who are the "good ones" who care about house elves--so why would I think that's only a narrow view? The Wizards are humans and see them the way human readers do. That house elves may see themselves as something other than slaves despite conforming to every bit of the definition of slave (unlike merpeople and fish) doesn't change that Wizards, who are human, have never indicated they understand them any differently than I do. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 17:09:33 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:09:33 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180762 Magpie: More importantly in this case, the *wizards* consider them slaves. Whatever the mindset of the elves, who are not the pov characters, the Wizards make no bones about seeing them as slaves and don't come to some new understanding that from their (the Wizards') pov they're something else. Wizards are humans and have the same understanding of the human construct of slavery that we do. That's why the question isn't whether house elves are wrong to want to be what they are-- whether or not a house elf truly understands himself to be a slave because that's a human construct that they don't understand, the Wizards absolutely understand them as slaves in the same way readers do. Alla: Well, actually I challenge the idea that wizards have the same understanding of the human construct of slavery that we do. Oh, it looks like slavery all right, but the very same actions and events in the different society can be something totally different by the way. Oh, and for the record I totally think that house elves are slaves and hold the POV that JKR left the storyline widely opened for a reason - that slavery does not dissappear so fast, BUT I totally understand the POV of those who think it is not. Have you ever read the book "Swordspoint" by Ellen Kushner for example? If you did, I am sure you will agree with me that this society does not think of itself as society of mass murderers. But, um, there are swordsmen who can be hired to kill anybody basically at any point and this is considered a job as any other and every noble of the society basically accepts that his life can end at any time and if it is done by following couple of rules, those swordsmen do not get punished or put to prison, etc. So, if I were to follow the rules of my own society, I would certainly call what was happening in there to be murders committed over and over and over again. After all, those will be in **our society**. Same thing with house elves - how do you know that if it looks like slavery to you ( and me) that human wizards consider it to be the same thing as we do? I know I do not know that. I mean, I LIKE interviews and freely use them, so I do not doubt that JKR intended to portray slavery, but where is it in canon that human wizards think of it as such? We agree that elves want to serve, don't we and the main issue is whether it is disgusting for human wizards to accept them a such? Well, how do we know that they think of house elves as slaves? Alla. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 18:49:40 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:49:40 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180763 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > a_svirn: > > Oh, come now. Of course they are. They are the property of > > wizards, completely divested of personal rights and freedom, > > entirely subject to their will. All of the above means slaves. > > Mike: > Then since merpeople swim, feed, and live under the water, can't > survive out of it, they are fish. a_svirn: Do you know, Mike, whales are swim feed and live under water and they are not fish. And dolphins, and porpoises etc. It is possible for living and even mythological creatures to live under water and without being fish. It is not possible for a person ? and house elves are persons, even if they aren't humans ? to be owned without being a slave. > > > a_svirn: > > And that's not slavery because? > > Mike: > Because slavery is a human construct. They're not humans, they don't > accept that definition of their condition. (All except Dobby, the > exception that proves the rule). a_svirn: There is no reason why they should *accept* anything. No one certainly asks them to. They are slaves from a human point of view, and wizards are human. In human, more specifically English language owning someone as a property, have this someone completely subjected to one's will and divested of their own will means owning a slave. > > > > > Mike: > > > Ron was right about the elves not being slaves, > > > a_svirn: > > When did he ever say so? He only said that they *like* being what > > they are. Which is slaves. a_svirn: His attitude is that they like being slaves. If you say that they like being something they are not it simply wouldn't make sense. > > > > a_svirn: > > > Eh? For one thing it was an elf who first mentioned their > > > enslavement. Besides, it is true, while calling merpeople fish, > > > or centaurs nags is not. > > Mike: Answered above. And why can't a centaur be called a nag? It's > just as much a derogatory term as "slave". a_svirn: I really don't think it is answered. And it isn't even derogatory ? for a nag. A small pony or horse can be called a nag, and it won't be insulting. Whereas for a centaur it will be an insult *and* an untruth. > > Magpie: > > However with Kreacher he goes from never wanting to have anything > > to do with him, to using him once in a pinch (against Kreacher's > > wishes by using his magical power as master), to enjoying regular > > house elf/master relations once Kreacher's work gets better and > > Kreacher gets more pleasant. > > Mike: > And Kreacher was disgusted with this change in Harry, was he? So > Harry accepts the ways of this world, vastly improves his > relationship with Kreacher, and I'm supposed to think that's a bad > thing?! a_svirn: Well, I do. I don't like the ways of that particular world. > > Mike: > Bill, who works with goblins, seems to have a good grasp of their > nature. I'm not sure it's fair to take the understanding of three > teenage wizards and extrapolate that to the whole WW. That the WW > seems less than empathetic to the other magical creatures comes from > things like Sirius' rants against people like Umbridge. (And Crouch, > and Dumbledore's pronouncements). It also comes from Griphook's self > serving (and I might add, hypocritical) position on goblin-wizard > relations. Griphook flattered Harry by telling him he was different, > but he treated Harry the same as he would any other wizard, in the > end. Is that the type of culture that wizards should endeavor to > understand and empathize with? a_svirn: I didn't say they should. I said they don't. They don't accept goblins' altitude because it does not suit them, and they accept elves' attitude because it does. They want to keep the property they bought and they want to keep elves as their property. What goblins or elves think or want does not matter for them. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 19:10:46 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:10:46 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180764 > Alla: > > Well, actually I challenge the idea that wizards have the same > understanding of the human construct of slavery that we do. Oh, it > looks like slavery all right, but the very same actions and events > in the different society can be something totally different by the > way. > a_svirn: They certainly can. But when you as an outsider describe these actions and events you use the language and understanding of your own culture. If you wandered off to the land of anthropophagi like poor Othello, you'd describe them as cannibals. And it doesn't really matter whether they would *accept* this appellation, or use it, or judge your very understandable revulsion as insulting. If you lived to tell the tale you'd still call them cannibals. The same goes for wizards. From our human point of view they are slave-owners. Now, if they are quite as human as we are, then from their point of view they must be slave-owners too. If they aren't quite as human after all, well ? their loss. a_svirn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 19:21:00 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:21:00 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180765 > > Alla: > > > > Well, actually I challenge the idea that wizards have the same > > understanding of the human construct of slavery that we do. Oh, it > > looks like slavery all right, but the very same actions and events > > in the different society can be something totally different by the > > way. > > > > a_svirn: > They certainly can. But when you as an outsider describe these > actions and events you use the language and understanding of your own > culture. Alla: Well, yeah but who cares what I think of it? I am being absolutely serious. Who the heck am I to determine what the people from the different society are? I can certainly have my view, but who am I to judge them? a_svirn: If you wandered off to the land of anthropophagi like poor > Othello, you'd describe them as cannibals. And it doesn't really > matter whether they would *accept* this appellation, or use it, or > judge your very understandable revulsion as insulting. If you lived > to tell the tale you'd still call them cannibals. The same goes for > wizards. From our human point of view they are slave-owners. Now, if > they are quite as human as we are, then from their point of view they > must be slave-owners too. If they aren't quite as human after all, > well ? their loss. Alla: It is the "does not matter" part I take an exception to. To me it matters a great deal if we judge WW society as completely different from our own. As I said, I am not sure what right do I have to judge them, you know? In the book that I mentioned upthread you can be killed at any time, at any place, if some noble hired the swordsman to kill you or your champion. I repeat - be you a kid, a woman, an old man, you can be killed at ANY TIME. Do you have to commit any offense? Um, no not really. The noble who hired the killer, ooops sorry esteemed swordsman could have just disliked how you look. The ONLY time swordsman may be punished in any way, shape or form is if he does not have a noble to confirm that he was indeed hired. So, don't you think that this is the society of hired killers? Yeah, if I were to impose my values, I certainly think so. The thing is - THEY DO NOT. They think the job of swordsmen is as respectable as any other and every member of the society accepts that his life can end by the sword at any time. Let me ask you again - shouldn't we accept what this society thinks of such things and not impose our own values on them? Now I am in the wierd position since I always argued that JKR does not write about any alternative society, but plays with the values of our world and reflects them in interesting way in Potterverse, but IMO those who think that Potterverse is completely different also have equally valid and very logical interpretation. JMO, Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 19:29:03 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:29:03 -0000 Subject: House-Elves again (Was: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180766 > Carol: > *Of course* wizards are perfectly happy to accommodate the House-Elves > nature. (Note the name: House-Elves. They belong in houses. Wizard's > houses, as they don't seem to build their own.) And House-Elves are > perfectly happy to accomodate the Wizards. It's a mutually beneficial > relationship unless the House-Elves are abused. And that's where > Hermione's focus is now that she finally understands House-Elf > psychology. a_svirn: Except when they are desperately unhappy like Dobby and Kreacher in OotP and HBP. Wizarding logic seems to be that they are only slaves because they want to serve; however, if and when they don't want to serve they should anyway, because they are slaves, after all. > > Carol, noting that a rebellious House-Elf can do a pretty good job of > making a psychologically abusive master unhappy, if Kreacher is any > indication a_svirn Is this an argument pro slavery or contra? From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 19:39:26 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:39:26 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180767 > > a_svirn: > > They certainly can. But when you as an outsider describe these > > actions and events you use the language and understanding of your > own > > culture. > > Alla: > > Well, yeah but who cares what I think of it? a_svirn: I do! > Alla: I am being absolutely > serious. Who the heck am I to determine what the people from the > different society are? I can certainly have my view, but who am I to > judge them? a_svirn: Not determine, or judge, Alla, describe! We are talking about description. I describe wizards in terms of my own culture, and in terms of my culture they are slaves-owners. Perhaps they are so different from us, ordinary folks, that they wouldn't recognise themselves in this description. But I doubt it. If they were so different we wouldn't be so fascinated with the series. One of its major attractions is the idea that they are "just like us" ? only magical. a_svirn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jan 19 19:43:01 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:43:01 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180768 > Magpie: > > More importantly in this case, the *wizards* consider them slaves. > Whatever the mindset of the elves, who are not the pov characters, > the Wizards make no bones about seeing them as slaves and don't come > to some new understanding that from their (the Wizards') pov they're > something else. Wizards are humans and have the same understanding of > the human construct of slavery that we do. That's why the question > isn't whether house elves are wrong to want to be what they are-- > whether or not a house elf truly understands himself to be a slave > because that's a human construct that they don't understand, the > Wizards absolutely understand them as slaves in the same way readers > do. > > > Alla: > > Well, actually I challenge the idea that wizards have the same > understanding of the human construct of slavery that we do. Oh, it > looks like slavery all right, but the very same actions and events > in the different society can be something totally different by the > way. Magpie: I see no indication that's the case in the WW. The WW is in many ways based on our world with a lot of recognizable things in it--often things that are idealized versions of stuff that used to be true in the Muggle world--for instance, they use trains because trains have a certain romanticism and nostalgic quality. But where does anyone ever suggest that they understand slavery in a different way than humans do? They differ from modern British people in that they think it's okay, and they have certain races they see as their natural servants, but that doesn't make it something other than slavery. The word slavery has bad connotations because of the thing it describes not the other way around. If somebody started calling slaves in the American South "gleebils" the same problems would be there. Seems, actually, that if we're going to try to break that down we ought to also breakdown this idea that certain Purebloods are bigoted towards Muggle-borns. Who says they're really prejudiced or racists, after all? Maybe they're understanding of things is just different than ours. Just because it completely mirrors what we would call bigotry doesn't mean it is. (Trouble is, if it isn't bigotry what is it and what point is it?) The books themselves and the Wizards make all the same distinctions we humans do every time--how are they doing that if their understanding is actually different than orus? Muggle-born Hermione we know has the same ideas about it that we do, since she's a Muggle (same with Harry). Her misunderstanding that gets corrected is that slaves will accept freedom if it's offered to them, not that they aren't free. But all the characters who are from the Wizarding world accept the same definitions--they all talk of "freedom" being the thing house elves aren't, they all note the difference between being paid for work you do of your own free will and being compelled to work for a master, they all make the distinction of being owned vs. not being owned, being master of your own person or not. I can't think of a single place in canon where there's any hint that these people understand the arrangement any differently than I do, including my pov character Harry. Alla: > Have you ever read the book "Swordspoint" by Ellen Kushner for > example? > > If you did, I am sure you will agree with me that this society does > not think of itself as society of mass murderers. But, um, there are > swordsmen who can be hired to kill anybody basically at any point > and this is considered a job as any other and every noble of the > society basically accepts that his life can end at any time and if > it is done by following couple of rules, those swordsmen do not get > punished or put to prison, etc. Magpie: I see no indication that the WW *doesn't* consider themselves slave owners. Slavery being accepted and seen as natural doesn't make it not slavery--it's not even that unusual. I think the idea that they don't see it this way is the more extravagant claim, so the burden of proof is on it. Alla: > Same thing with house elves - how do you know that if it looks like > slavery to you ( and me) that human wizards consider it to be the > same thing as we do? > > I know I do not know that. I mean, I LIKE interviews and freely use > them, so I do not doubt that JKR intended to portray slavery, but > where is it in canon that human wizards think of it as such? > > We agree that elves want to serve, don't we and the main issue is > whether it is disgusting for human wizards to accept them a such? > > Well, how do we know that they think of house elves as slaves? Magpie: Harry and Hermione *are* us, as Muggle-raised, so we already know they have our pov. We don't see Harry go through any change in his understanding of what his role is re: house elves who wait on him. The book has everyone make the same distinctions we humans do, particularly between free and not free, paid and unpaid, master and...gleebil. House elves are treated as property. Ron, our Pureblood character, never explains some other thing that they really are when the subject comes up over and over--he, Hermione and Harry never have any misunderstanding as to what they are. Does Hermione ever use the word slave? Because if she does I don't recall Ron or anyone else correcting her. We know the word slave exists in the WW. Basically, I can't even imagine what other understandings Wizards could have about house elves that wouldn't just recreate attitudes towards slaves in our world. How is it that you think they understand them that makes it not like a slave owner describing his relationship to his slave? -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 19 20:11:19 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:11:19 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180769 > > Montavilla47: > Except Ron started out enlightened. Pippin: Um, no. He started out spouting what he'd been taught to believe, same as Hermione. Winky was clearly in distress *before* she was freed, but Ron ignored that, as dismissive of House Elf misery under the current system as Hermione was of House Elf contentment. Both of them conveniently ignored any data that didn't fit their theories (gee, they'd fit right in around here, ya think? ) Ron's major response to Hermione's concerns was to tell her to give it a rest. Elves were all right as they were and meddling in their affairs might put them off their cooking. His revealing of the hats was a step towards enlightenment, but only a step. Though he's generally very outspoken, he didn't confront Hermione about what she was doing, perhaps because he'd have had to admit that House Elves were subject to abuse under the current system, if only by being freed against their will. Meanwhile, Hermione made progress in the other direction. Although she pleaded for Kreacher's freedom, she didn't try to take the matter into her own hands. Ron's spontaneous realization that the Hogwarts Elves were in peril not only from the attackers but from Hogwarts wizards ordering them to fight is what earns him a kiss. He's finally had to admit that wizards won't treat elves with kindness and respect unless other wizards see to it. Montavilla: > And then the other weirdness comes from JKR's > statement that the elves were about her take on > slavery itself. Because, her takes appears to be > that slavery is okay, as long as you don't beat or > yell at your slaves and give them the occasional gift. Pippin: I think her take on slavery is that treating it as a moral issue is a wonderful deterrent but not much of a remedy. It's to Hermione's credit that her moral circuitry lights up over slavery, but unfortunately the WW hasn't been programmed with the same triggers. She's reacting to eleven years of conditioning that Ron and Harry haven't had. She doesn't make any progress with the moral issue until she reframes it as fairness, something that Ron believes in already. Dumbledore, meanwhile, frames the issue around community. Even one wizard who mistreats others endangers the whole. And since humans can't be trusted to treat even their natural dependents with kindness and respect at all times, wouldn't it be folly to think they'd treat artificial dependents any better? That the wizarding world is at peace nineteen years after the war would seem to indicate they've made some progress towards real magical brotherhood, IMO. Montavilla: > And Harry actually goes backward. Unless his journey is to > go from a skewed perspective on elves (elves shouldn't have > to serve wizards) to a proper one (its okay for elves to serve > wizards). Pippin: His take was that Elves who don't want to serve wizards shouldn't have to, but Elves who do want to serve wizards are well off. Hokey changed his mind about that. Having a kind mistress didn't help her. He also took the labor of the Hogwarts Elves completely for granted-- they've made him hundreds of sandwiches without praise or thanks. I doubt that Harry was going to treat Kreacher that way. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 20:23:19 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:23:19 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180770 > Alla: > > > > Well, actually I challenge the idea that wizards have the same > > understanding of the human construct of slavery that we do. Oh, it > > looks like slavery all right, but the very same actions and events > > in the different society can be something totally different by the > > way. > > Magpie: > I see no indication that's the case in the WW. The WW is in many ways > based on our world with a lot of recognizable things in it--often > things that are idealized versions of stuff that used to be true in > the Muggle world--for instance, they use trains because trains have a > certain romanticism and nostalgic quality. Alla: Society can be similar to another society in something and completely different in another. Yes, they use trains; no we do not use wands for example. But as I said before I DO think that Potterverse is in many ways reflection of our world. The trouble is I got this from interviews only, so should it count? Magpie: > But where does anyone ever suggest that they understand slavery in a > different way than humans do? They differ from modern British people > in that they think it's okay, and they have certain races they see as > their natural servants, but that doesn't make it something other than > slavery. Alla: I think it does. I think it does if society considers it to be so. And I just do not see indication that they understand slavery in the same way we do, so making an opposite assumption to me is just an assumption. Magpie: > Seems, actually, that if we're going to try to break that down we > ought to also breakdown this idea that certain Purebloods are bigoted > towards Muggle-borns. Who says they're really prejudiced or racists, > after all? Maybe they're understanding of things is just different > than ours. Just because it completely mirrors what we would call > bigotry doesn't mean it is. (Trouble is, if it isn't bigotry what is > it and what point is it?) Alla: Oh yeah, absolutely. I do not subscribe to this argument, but I think it is a very valid one. But let's take something we all know and love - Snape ;). For years I argued that he is a stinking child abuser and still think so. The trouble is I think I AM imposing very much the values of my own society when I think this. I think I can do it because again I think that Potterverse is envisioned as reflection of our society first and foremost, but those who do not think so, can certainly tell me - child abuse, what child abuse? Kids in our society ( I am talking about american society right now) do not have to prepare themselves for the war with evil wizard, don't they? Kids in our society do not have to be ready to face trolls, dracons, centaurs, etc. For all I know they may need a harsher task master and certainly WW seems to have no trouble with Snape's teaching, don't they? Do I like it? OF COURSE NOT. I would do whatever it takes to make sure that teacher like Snape ever been remotely close to any child of mine, but WW does and I think they are having very very different values in that aspect. Which again, let me say, I do not LIKE and again let me say the interviews let me think that JKR does not like either thank goodness, but for all I know WW does like them very much and teachers like Snape are just fine and dandy? You do not think that the case with "slavery" can be similar deal? To us it looks like slavery, just as to me what Snape did looked and smell like disgusting child abuse, but WW thinks it is totally okay and who are we to say otherwise? The actions are the same, they just evaluate them differently IMO. Magpie: > The books themselves and the Wizards make all the same distinctions > we humans do every time--how are they doing that if their > understanding is actually different than orus? Alla: See above - WW seems to have VERY different understanding from what kind of teachers are allowed to be near kids than I do. To me it is a strong indicator of the society with the different values in some aspects of life if not all. > Magpie: > I see no indication that the WW *doesn't* consider themselves slave > owners. Slavery being accepted and seen as natural doesn't make it > not slavery--it's not even that unusual. I think the idea that they > don't see it this way is the more extravagant claim, so the burden of > proof is on it. Alla: I have to prove something that is not spelled in canon once as far as I know? No word slavery, but assumption is made that it is slavery? I really do not think so. IMO of course. And again, I am not arguing that it does not LOOK like slavery, I am arguing that it is being accepted as normal in society as long as there are no abuses. I believe it is slavery, but this is again from what interview you quote. So they call wizards masters, so what? Does it mean that it is the same thing as in our society? Why? > Magpie: > The book has everyone make the same distinctions we humans do, > particularly between free and not free, paid and unpaid, master > and...gleebil. House elves are treated as property. Alla: House elves are treated as somebody who wants to serve don't they? and there is unspoken rule that they should be treated well, just as swordsman should have a guy who hired him, then it is not murder. As long as something is done by the rule, it is totally fine for those societies it seems. Magpie: How is it that you think they understand > them that make it not like a slave owner describing his relationship > to his slave? Alla: If we are talking about good wizards per canon, I think as long as they are not abused, it is a normal custom of the society, but again it is funny since I do think they are slaves, I just see plenty of evidence for other side interpretation. a_svirn: Not determine, or judge, Alla, describe! We are talking about description. I describe wizards in terms of my own culture, and in terms of my culture they are slaves-owners. Perhaps they are so different from us, ordinary folks, that they wouldn't recognize themselves in this description. But I doubt it. If they were so different we wouldn't be so fascinated with the series. One of its major attractions is the idea that they are "just like us" ? only magical. Alla: OOOOO, I see. Then I would say that yes, it is possible that they will not recognize themselves in this description. But sure in many aspects they are just like us, just not in all of them IMO. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 19 22:38:04 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:38:04 -0000 Subject: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180771 > > Magpie: > But as a_svirn has pointed out, this isn't about house elf values > since Wizards don't respect the values of all magical races just > because they are the values of the magical race. As to what it says > about slavery, it certainly says that slavery isn't a bad thing (and > actually can be construed as a good thing) if you have a willing > slave. Pippin: Where does canon indicate that it's good? Does anyone finish the story and want to be a House Elf? Or think that Harry, Ron or Hermione should replace Kreacher with another Elf when Kreacher dies? Sure, we might want to own a House Elf if we could fool ourselves into thinking we'd always treat them kindly, but how is that different than wishing we could sample a dose of amortentia or experience the bliss of an Imperius curse? Magpie: The advantages to having a slave are certainly shown in a > guilt-free way. Iow, it shows that in some situations there's nothing > inherently wrong with being the master to a slave. Pippin: Treating something in a guilt-free way, for instance by treating alcoholism as a disease instead of a moral failing, does not mean that there is nothing wrong with it. But the alcoholic does not choose to become an addict so we don't blame him for that even if he gets benefits from drinking. Harry did not choose to make Kreacher his slave, so why should he feel morally diminished by owning him? Kreacher would feel as hurt if Harry refused to let him cook or clean as if Harry tried to pay him. If I were Harry, I might want to contribute the wages Kreacher should be earning to SPEW or its successor. But I don't think Rowling was obliged to tell us that in order to round out the story. I never saw the problems of the wizarding world as something that JKR was arranging like ninepins so that Harry could knock them down all in one go. He has no power to make fundamental changes in human nature -- the impulses that drive people to make slaves are not going away. Improvement for the Elves will therefore depend on people understanding that there are negative consequences to the status quo which can be averted if things are changed. The consequences of House Elf slavery aren't the same as the consequences of human slavery, but they are still negative, and anyone who reads the books carefully understands what they are. Certainly the Trio does. How could Harry possibly think the benefits of getting a sandwich when he wants one compensate for losing Sirius? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 20 00:04:12 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:04:12 -0000 Subject: House-Elves again (Was: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180772 Carol earlier: > > *Of course* wizards are perfectly happy to accommodate the House-Elves nature. (Note the name: House-Elves. They belong in houses. Wizard's houses, as they don't seem to build their own.) And House-Elves are perfectly happy to accomodate the Wizards. It's a mutually beneficial relationship unless the House-Elves are abused. And that's where Hermione's focus is now that she finally understands House-Elf psychology. > > a_svirn: > Except when they are desperately unhappy like Dobby and Kreacher in > OotP and HBP. Wizarding logic seems to be that they are only slaves > because they want to serve; however, if and when they don't want to > serve they should anyway, because they are slaves, after all. > > > > > Carol, noting that a rebellious House-Elf can do a pretty good job of making a psychologically abusive master unhappy, if Kreacher is any > > indication > > a_svirn > Is this an argument pro slavery or contra? > Carol responds: I don't know how to answer that question. Of course, I'm not pro-slavery in RL. I'm saying that the human-House-Elf relationship, unless abused, is mutually beneficial and is not comparable to slavery in RL. I'm also arguing that House-Elves are not entirely helpless, as Kreacher illustrates. He's not about to serve a master he doesn't respect in any useful way. We agree that Kreacher and Dobby are each unhappy in their own way (and each finds a way to thwart his master's will), but neither of them is a normal House-Elf. If House-Elves are given what they want (like the House-Elves at Hogwarts), they're happy. In turn, they give "good service," making their owners happy. The owners, in turn, thank them or compliment them, making them happier still. The only problem is the enchantment that forces them to punish themselves when they disobey their masters. *That's* what makes them "slaves," and that's what Hermione is disturbed about in HBP. Otherwise, as I stated in the clipped portions of my post, they're doing what they want to do and are evidently designed by nature to do, serve wizards. As I said, they don't seem capable of working for each other (House-Elves don't own houses) and working for Goblins would be as bad as or worse than working for Wizards. What are their options? Opening a cleaning business, working for money "like a common goblin," to borrow Winky's phrase? Why impose human values on them? Let *them* decide what makes them happy. That's the lesson Hermione learns, IMO. Carol, still wondering what this glorious "freedom" to be imposed on the House-Elves against their will would consist of From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Jan 20 00:09:03 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:09:03 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180773 > > Magpie: > > I see no indication that's the case in the WW. The WW is in many > ways > > based on our world with a lot of recognizable things in it--often > > things that are idealized versions of stuff that used to be true > in > > the Muggle world--for instance, they use trains because trains > have a > > certain romanticism and nostalgic quality. > > > Alla: > > Society can be similar to another society in something and > completely different in another. Yes, they use trains; no we do not > use wands for example. > > But as I said before I DO think that Potterverse is in many ways > reflection of our world. The trouble is I got this from interviews > only, so should it count? Magpie: Sure the societies can be different, but that doesn't mean this particular area is different. I'm not getting that the Potterverse is like our world from interviews, I'm getting it from reading the books. In the case of the house elves, I get my understanding of the way they're viewed and the way their masters interact with them from the books too. > Magpie: > > But where does anyone ever suggest that they understand slavery in > a > > different way than humans do? They differ from modern British > people > > in that they think it's okay, and they have certain races they see > as > > their natural servants, but that doesn't make it something other > than > > slavery. > > Alla: > > I think it does. I think it does if society considers it to be so. > And I just do not see indication that they understand slavery in the > same way we do, so making an opposite assumption to me is just an > assumption. Magpie: Here's where I get my impression that they see them as what we would call slaves: They claim them as property. They have to do what their masters say. They live to serve their masters. What does it mean to say they don't understand slavery the same way we do? The only differences I see in the way they understand it and the way we do is that they hold the belief that it is the natural order, that it's beneficial to the elf, that it isn't immoral on the part of the owner. That's certainly a different view from the modern view of slavery, but I don't see how it makes it not the exact thing that we would call slavery. How are you suggesting they understand it that's so different from the way I do? Because I've never yet in the book found any Wizard to not be on exactly the same page I am when it comes to understanding this aspect of the house elf system. We might have different reactions to it, but it's not like I'm mistaken about the elves being owned, being subject to their master's will etc. They know how much power they have over elves as much as I do. Perhaps if I showed them a scene from the antebellum American South they might say, "OMG, that's awful! We are nothing like that!" because they'd see treating a human that way very different than treating a house elf that way, but I don't think that would mean they had a different understanding of the way they relate to house elves. > Magpie: > > Seems, actually, that if we're going to try to break that down we > > ought to also breakdown this idea that certain Purebloods are > bigoted > > towards Muggle-borns. Who says they're really prejudiced or > racists, > > after all? Maybe they're understanding of things is just different > > than ours. Just because it completely mirrors what we would call > > bigotry doesn't mean it is. (Trouble is, if it isn't bigotry what > is > > it and what point is it?) > > Alla: > > Oh yeah, absolutely. I do not subscribe to this argument, but I > think it is a very valid one. But let's take something we all know > and love - Snape ;). > > For years I argued that he is a stinking child abuser and still > think so. The trouble is I think I AM imposing very much the values > of my own society when I think this. I think I can do it because > again I think that Potterverse is envisioned as reflection of our > society first and foremost, but those who do not think so, can > certainly tell me - child abuse, what child abuse? Magpie: Okay, so we're talking about "slavery" being a slippery term like child abuse that's in the eye of the beholder? So basically it's like Wizards saying they're not enslaved enough to be considered slaves? I understand the thought process but it still doesn't seem to at all reflect the Wizard's view of house elves. In the case of child abuse it's people saying, "Sure Snape's being mean, but it's not abuse if he's not really damaging Harry or hitting him" or whatever. With Wizards and house elves they seem to be perfectly happy to say that yes indeed the slaves are property and are truly owned by them, which seems to be deconstructing the word "slave" to the point where it doesn't mean anything. If anything Wizards have far more power over elves and elves have even less freedom and power than human slaves because they are so tied to their master's will they have to punish themselves for disobeying it. Their body is "owned" by their master even more than a human slave's is. Alla: > > Kids in our society ( I am talking about american society right now) > do not have to prepare themselves for the war with evil wizard, > don't they? > > Kids in our society do not have to be ready to face trolls, dracons, > centaurs, etc. For all I know they may need a harsher task master > and certainly WW seems to have no trouble with Snape's teaching, > don't they? > > Do I like it? OF COURSE NOT. I would do whatever it takes to make > sure that teacher like Snape ever been remotely close to any child > of mine, but WW does and I think they are having very very different > values in that aspect. Magpie: Yes, they have different values in that they think it's *okay* to have a teacher doing what Snape is doing. They think Snape's rough treatment of Harry is good because it prepares him for his battles. They're not disagreeing that Snape is treating Harry roughly or picking on him. This is openly acknowledged by everyone. In the case of the house elves, I can't remember any Wizard denying that their owned house elf was owned, or that they weren't free. They disagree that this is a bad thing, not that it's the way it is. Nobody's disagreeing that the WW has a different view on the persons known as house elves being owned in that they think it's normal and okay and good for the elves. They still own them. Alla: > The actions are the same, they just evaluate them differently IMO. Magpie: Yes, the actions are the same and that's what I'm talking about. Me and Ron don't disagree at all about what's going on with the house elves. We just disagree on how acceptable it is to be part of that system. > Magpie: > > The books themselves and the Wizards make all the same > distinctions > > we humans do every time--how are they doing that if their > > understanding is actually different than orus? > > > Alla: > > See above - WW seems to have VERY different understanding from what > kind of teachers are allowed to be near kids than I do. To me it is > a strong indicator of the society with the different values in some > aspects of life if not all. Magpie: We're not talking about what values they have, we're talking about how they understand the relationship between house elf and master. In that they are no different than the way I understand it. They have a different reaction than I do, but we see it the same way. > > Magpie: > > I see no indication that the WW *doesn't* consider themselves > slave > > owners. Slavery being accepted and seen as natural doesn't make it > > not slavery--it's not even that unusual. I think the idea that > they > > don't see it this way is the more extravagant claim, so the burden > of > > proof is on it. > > Alla: > > I have to prove something that is not spelled in canon once as far > as I know? No word slavery, but assumption is made that it is > slavery? I really do not think so. IMO of course. Magpie: Because it is spelled out in canon. They're owned, they have to do what their master says, they're passed down like property, their master has power over them. Where is that not spelled out? Nobody has ever suggested anything other than that is happening. The disagreement is only in what, if anything, is wrong with that in itself. Alla: > I believe it is slavery, but this is again from what interview you > quote. So they call wizards masters, so what? Does it mean that it > is the same thing as in our society? Why? Magpie: For me, yes, it is the same thing as it is in our society for the same reason I understand pretty much every other thing that happens in the book. > > Magpie: > > > The book has everyone make the same distinctions we humans do, > > particularly between free and not free, paid and unpaid, master > > and...gleebil. House elves are treated as property. > > Alla: > > House elves are treated as somebody who wants to serve don't they? > and there is unspoken rule that they should be treated well, just as > swordsman should have a guy who hired him, then it is not murder. As > long as something is done by the rule, it is totally fine for those > societies it seems. Magpie: They're treated like property who must serve whether they want to serve or not, actually. I agree that it's totally fine in this society "as long as it is done by the rules" (those rules being slippery). An "unspoken rule" that they should be treated well (based on one Wizard or another's idea of what it means to treat them well) doesn't make them free. That's pretty much the way I believe it works with human slaves too, minus the assumption that they generally want to serve. > > > Magpie: > > How is it that you think they understand > > them that make it not like a slave owner describing his > relationship > > to his slave? > > > Alla: > > If we are talking about good wizards per canon, I think as long as > they are not abused, it is a normal custom of the society, but again > it is funny since I do think they are slaves, I just see plenty of > evidence for other side interpretation. Magpie: But where is being "a normal custom of the society" not a slave? Slaves are and have been a normal custom of lots of societies. They almost always are, actually, because if slavery is illegal they can't be legally trafficked. Good wizards don't own their house elves any less than bad Wizards do. They might abuse their power less or not, but they have the same power. > Magpie: > But as a_svirn has pointed out, this isn't about house elf values > since Wizards don't respect the values of all magical races just > because they are the values of the magical race. As to what it says > about slavery, it certainly says that slavery isn't a bad thing (and > actually can be construed as a good thing) if you have a willing > slave. Pippin: Where does canon indicate that it's good? Does anyone finish the story and want to be a House Elf? Or think that Harry, Ron or Hermione should replace Kreacher with another Elf when Kreacher dies? Magpie: Who said anything about wanting to be a house elf? It's being a house elf owner that's the sweet deal. Should they replace Kreacher when he dies? Sure, why not? Wouldn't you miss the wonderful cooking and somebody doing all your cleaning for you? Pippin: Sure, we might want to own a House Elf if we could fool ourselves into thinking we'd always treat them kindly, but how is that different than wishing we could sample a dose of amortentia or experience the bliss of an Imperius curse? Magpie: Exactly why I think owning a slave is problematic whether the slave is happy or willing or not. But I doubt JKR would say Harry or Hermione couldn't be trusted with the responsibility. Magpie: The advantages to having a slave are certainly shown in a > guilt-free way. Iow, it shows that in some situations there's nothing > inherently wrong with being the master to a slave. Pippin: Treating something in a guilt-free way, for instance by treating alcoholism as a disease instead of a moral failing, does not mean that there is nothing wrong with it. But the alcoholic does not choose to become an addict so we don't blame him for that even if he gets benefits from drinking. Magpie: How is this supposed to be relevent? I don't see Harry's final thoughts on his house elf reading at all like an ominous note of Harry being on his way to alcoholism by ending the book reaching for a drink. I don't read any hints of danger in the text in Harry owning Kreacher. Pippin: Harry did not choose to make Kreacher his slave, so why should he feel morally diminished by owning him? Kreacher would feel as hurt if Harry refused to let him cook or clean as if Harry tried to pay him. If I were Harry, I might want to contribute the wages Kreacher should be earning to SPEW or its successor. But I don't think Rowling was obliged to tell us that in order to round out the story. Magpie: Yes, Harry didn't choose to make Kreacher his slave and there's no indication that he's morally diminished by his enjoying him as one. Enjoying him as one. No, JKR didn't have to tell of Harry contributing his wages to SPEW to round out the story at all. House Elf freedom isn't part of the story. She wrote Harry enjoying his elf without moral diminishment--since we can assume Harry will be a good owner. Pippin: I never saw the problems of the wizarding world as something that JKR was arranging like ninepins so that Harry could knock them down all in one go. He has no power to make fundamental changes in human nature -- the impulses that drive people to make slaves are not going away. Magpie: Harry's not much knocking anything down but righting it again. Far from wanting the power to change the impulse to make slaves he's a regular guy appreciating the advantages of having one. Pippin: The consequences of House Elf slavery aren't the same as the consequences of human slavery, but they are still negative, and anyone who reads the books carefully understands what they are. Certainly the Trio does. Magpie: Sorry, I don't buy that if I read the book "carefully" I'd see negative consequences of Harry owning a slave or that the Trio sees negative consequences in that aspect of the book. Pippin: How could Harry possibly think the benefits of getting a sandwich when he wants one compensate for losing Sirius? Magpie: No idea what that's supposed to mean. Harry is thinking very much of the benefits of getting a sandwich at the end of the book. It doesn't have to mean he couldn't think of thousands of more things he'd like more than a sandwich, but it's still a nice little comfort to have your own house elf to bring you one in bed. -m From bekkio at gmail.com Sat Jan 19 23:36:58 2008 From: bekkio at gmail.com (Bekki Olivieri) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:36:58 -0800 Subject: Portus Call for Proposals Deadline approaching! In-Reply-To: <561bdbfa0801191335v68751064nc0c4cd0e2e18deb7@mail.gmail.com> References: <561bdbfa0801191335v68751064nc0c4cd0e2e18deb7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <561bdbfa0801191536x462ed029ue8f83f7969599e42@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180774 Portus 2008: A Harry Potter Symposium will be accepting proposals for Formal Programming through midnight CST on Monday, January 21, 2008. Now is your chance to be a magical part of the 5th HP Education Fanon, Inc. event, to be held July 10 - 13 in Dallas, Texas! Proposals for presentations, panels, workshops, roundtables and posters are being sought in the following areas: *Literary and Media Studies *Law, Politics, Ethics *Social Sciences *Education and Library Science *Fandom Studies and Culture *Fan Creativity For topic ideas and submission directions, please visit the Portus Call for Proposals at http://www.portus2008.org/call_for_proposals.htm. Bekki Olivieri Minister of Magic, Portus 2008 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 20 01:51:08 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 01:51:08 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180775 > Magpie: > Sure the societies can be different, but that doesn't mean this > particular area is different. Alla: Well, yes that is where our difference of opinion comes from Magpie: I'm not getting that the Potterverse is > like our world from interviews, I'm getting it from reading the > books. In the case of the house elves, I get my understanding of the > way they're viewed and the way their masters interact with them from > the books too. Alla: Truly, had I not read the interviews at all I would be absolutely thinking that this is another world being introduced, parallel to ours but a very different one. IMO of course. I mean, there are obvious similarities, but so many differences too IMO and I would not say that it is the same as our world had I not read the interviews. The most I would say that witches and wizards can experience human emotions and that pretty much it. I mean, Potterverse closed off from our world almost completely centuries ago, just like in some science fiction stories people are run off from their native land and establish new worlds. To me the fact that they have magic points to fundamental difference between their world and ours ? the things they can do because of it, etc. I know it is not so, but as I said only from interviews, since in so many instances they behave not like our society would. >> Magpie: > Here's where I get my impression that they see them as what we would > call slaves: They claim them as property. They have to do what their > masters say. They live to serve their masters. > > What does it mean to say they don't understand slavery the same way > we do? The only differences I see in the way they understand it and > the way we do is that they hold the belief that it is the natural > order, that it's beneficial to the elf, that it isn't immoral on the > part of the owner. Alla: The beneficial to the slave part? I mean you ( generic you) keep saying that elf's POV does not matter, but wizards ARE aware of that POV that elves indeed live to serve the master, and to me it is very different from human slavery. That to me changes everything, I mean if I want to keep owning house elf because it is good for him ( and of course good for me) is different from human slavery because it is not good for human to be owned. Magpie: Because I've never yet in the > book found any Wizard to not be on exactly the same page I am when it > comes to understanding this aspect of the house elf system. We might > have different reactions to it, but it's not like I'm mistaken about > the elves being owned, being subject to their master's will etc. They > know how much power they have over elves as much as I do. Alla: Do they know how much power they have over their elves if the enchantment of self punishment had being lifted? Was Lucius aware of what Dobby can do if he puts himself to the task? Magpie: > Perhaps if I showed them a scene from the antebellum American South > they might say, "OMG, that's awful! We are nothing like that!" > because they'd see treating a human that way very different than > treating a house elf that way, but I don't think that would mean they > had a different understanding of the way they relate to house elves. Alla: Did American south slave owners know for a fact that elves live to serve the wizards? Did they know for a fact that their human slaves would be HAPPY as long as they serve them and treated well? I really doubt it. > Magpie: > Okay, so we're talking about "slavery" being a slippery term like > child abuse that's in the eye of the beholder? So basically it's like > Wizards saying they're not enslaved enough to be considered slaves? Alla: No not at all. We are talking about what is happening to house elves to be considered slavery in one society and not one in another. Magpie: >In the case of child abuse > it's people saying, "Sure Snape's being mean, but it's not abuse if > he's not really damaging Harry or hitting him" or whatever. Alla: Well, although I remember these arguments as well, but I am referencing the exact arguments as I described - that what Snape doing is child abuse in our society but perfectly acceptable in WW and its values. Links are as always happily provided upon request. But I was not talking about Snape and Harry. > Magpie: > Yes, they have different values in that they think it's *okay* to > have a teacher doing what Snape is doing. They think Snape's rough > treatment of Harry is good because it prepares him for his battles. > They're not disagreeing that Snape is treating Harry roughly or > picking on him. This is openly acknowledged by everyone. Alla: I am referencing a very specific argument, you are bringing up completely different one, the one which I was not referencing. So, again the argument I reference goes like this - what Snape does would be child abuse under our system, but NOT child abuse under WW and its values, because the world is so rough and kids need to be prepared. I am talking about Snape and as long as we are at it, McGonagall's treatment of Neville. I want to see one reference in canon where his treatment is at least acknowledged as mean, by any authority figure, NOT by Harry of course. It seems like what is being done to Neville is perfectly acceptable under WW values and I want to see a school in US. where threatening to poison child's pet would go well. Oh, I also want to see where child services will not take a child from his home where his uncle will through him from the window hoping that child will fly or something. Oh, and I do not know one school where game like Quidditch where players could be killed or disappear for months will be allowed? THAT is to me shows completely different values of the society, because those kids can endure more, no? I see the argument for "slavery" being the same. Just as wizardlings can be perfectly okay while being thrown out of the window or even when they fall down on the Quidditch field ( which child in our world would be okay after that?), elves are perfectly happy to serve wizards if they are not being abused IMO. And as long as we are at Harry and Snape, I do not remember any authority figure acknowledging that Snape was being mean to him. Oh, Dumbledore acknowledged Snape's unfairness finally but it seemed to me to be connected to Snape hating Lily's son and nothing school related, even when he talks about detention. But again I was not talking about Harry. Magpie: > In the case of the house elves, I can't remember any Wizard denying > that their owned house elf was owned, or that they weren't free. They > disagree that this is a bad thing, not that it's the way it is. > > Nobody's disagreeing that the WW has a different view on the persons > known as house elves being owned in that they think it's normal and > okay and good for the elves. They still own them. Alla: The key difference to me that it IS good for house elves, it seems, as long as they will not punish themselves, so if wizards know that it IS good for house elves and good for them too, why again it is bad and they should not proceed as long as house elves are treated well? > > > Alla: > > The actions are the same, they just evaluate them differently IMO. > > Magpie: > Yes, the actions are the same and that's what I'm talking about. Me > and Ron don't disagree at all about what's going on with the house > elves. We just disagree on how acceptable it is to be part of that > system. Alla: I get that, but my question is if one is not imposing their values on that society, why is it not okay for that society? Why is it not okay for wizards to own the elves, if that is what elves really and truly want? To serve the wizards I mean. Humans are not born to serve other humans, that is not a natural order of things, with elves it seems to be exactly natural order. Pippin: I never saw the problems of the wizarding world as something that JKR was arranging like ninepins so that Harry could knock them down all in one go. He has no power to make fundamental changes in human nature -- the impulses that drive people to make slaves are not going away. Improvement for the Elves will therefore depend on people understanding that there are negative consequences to the status quo which can be averted if things are changed. Alla: That was well said Pippin. I also did not expect Harry to resolve all problems of potterverse at the end and see ambiguousness in house elves' situation and the signs that it will improve. I believe that elves are slaves, but again I believe mostly because of the interviews, but I certainly do not see same reaction from them as human slaves. For the longest time I was wondering about Dobby, since I do not think that JKR would go to all that trouble to present the elf who wants to be free, only to say that he is an oddball. But today I had a thought. Another one of Harry's close friends Hagrid also braced us with insight which we know turns out to be wrong. Maybe indeed Dobby was introduced to show that exceptions only prove the rule. JMO, Alla From windmills_woodenshoes at hotmail.com Sun Jan 20 03:06:24 2008 From: windmills_woodenshoes at hotmail.com (danielle dassero) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:06:24 -0700 Subject: Did Snape ever believe the Trio about........... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180776 So we all know that Snapes Worst Memory was called he called Lily a mudblood right. So after reading book 7 and I think someone on the leaky forum may have said this, reading the 3rd book has new meaning now, Snape hated Sirius not because of the Worst Memory scene or the Prank he played on Snape, instead Snape hated Sirius because he always believed Sirius was the secret keeper for the potters and Snape thought it was because of Sirius Lily died. Well I have to wonder if Snape ever got around to believing Harry that it was Wormtail who snitched and not Sirius. I wonder this for no other reason than wondering about. Snape would still have reason to hate Sirius, because Sirius thought of the switch to Wormtail. I mean just say that Snape did believe that Wormtail was the SK andthe traitor, makes ya wonder how strong Snape is, cause I couldn't have standed have Wormtail in my house for a summer, I would have killed him before the end of the 1st day lol. Well those are my thoughts take or leave them, sorry if it has been talked to death already.Danielle who wishes she had more potter nuts like herself to meet in person _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts!?Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jan 20 04:15:32 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:15:32 -0000 Subject: Did Snape ever believe the Trio about........... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180777 > Danielle: > Well I have to wonder if Snape ever got around to believing Harry that it was Wormtail who snitched and not Sirius. zgirnius: Personally I do not think Snape would have shaken Sirius's hand at the end of GoF if he still believed him to be the traitor. Even if I am wrong, it was no longer a matter of belief for Snape shortly thereafter, when he went back to Voldemort and presumably saw Wormtail there. Knowing that Peter was still alive, and a Death Eater, pretty much proves the story. > Danielle: > I wonder this for no other reason than wondering about. Snape would still have reason to hate Sirius, because Sirius thought of the switch to Wormtail. zgirnius: Not to mention that little trifle, that Snape believes Sirius tried to kill him. > Danielle: > I mean just say that Snape did believe that Wormtail was the SK andthe traitor, makes ya wonder how strong Snape is, cause I couldn't have standed have Wormtail in my house for a summer, I would have killed him before the end of the 1st day lol. zgirnius: He had a lot of practice. He acted the part of a loyal servant of Voldemrot, too. That's the guy that actually murdered Lily. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 20 05:26:03 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:26:03 -0000 Subject: Realistic Outcomes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180778 > zgirnius: > In an earlier post, you were attempting a contrast between a coup > among Muggles, and one among Wizards. (In suggesting Dolores's > office workers should simply rise up against her). Have you > rethought that supposed difference? Mike: Can I say that I'm not sure what I think? LOL. I'm not sure what earlier post you're referring to but I admit to being of two or more minds on this issue. I originally thought it happened too fast. Then my Fijiian friend corrected that impression with his real world experiences. Now, while rethinking the Trio's Ministry raid, I find myself disgusted with the employees attitude (or should that be lack of fortitude?). And yet I find yours and others explanations eminently reasonable. Like yours below: > zgirnius: > And I don't see why Wizards should be any different. > > Both can, under the right circumstances, be brought to a point > where they are willing to take that chance (as the Battle of > Hogwarts illustrates in the Potterverse), but it is not, IMO, the > default mode of either common Muggles, or common Wizards. Mike: What you've just said makes perfect sense. Yet, when I first read DH, I felt like the coup happened artificially fast and was too complete. I know part of my consternation comes from believing that Voldemort didn't have *that* many supporters/DEs. I could've readily believed continued terrorist acts and maybe even an attack on the Ministry, that would lead to it's eventual downfall. So when it transpires that Voldemort has all his ducks lined up and all that's needed was to off Scrimgeour, I wasn't prepared mentally to accept that. I'm just a floundering here. Maybe I should just shut up. :o) > Pippin: > The only reason Voldemort didn't call in reinforcements at Hogwarts > is that he thought he'd won already. But there were loads of > Dementors he could have summoned, loyal to him because he allows > them to breed and creates their favored habitat, and that whole > lake full of inferi too. Mike: Pippin, you keep bringing up the Dementors as if they're Voldemorts ace in the hole. I admit they were scary creatures to a 13-year-old Harry that didn't know what to do about them. But Harry can cast a Patronus that can vanquish hundreds of them now, and it'll hang around for a long time. (witness his MoM raid Prongs). Besides, there are now a lot of people other than just Harry that can cast Patroni. I just don't see them as that formidible against wizards willing to fight them. Inferi - I can't say. We only saw them in action in the cave. But Dumbledore took care of them with a simple fire charm. Heck, Hermione was using fire charms in first year. It's just my impression. YMMV. > Pippin: > Consider the number of dead in Moody's photo, and Lupin's > statement that The Order had been outnumbered. Most wizards > survived the first war by _not_ fighting. Mike: Yeah, I remember Lupin's "outnumbered 20:1". And yet only 30 or so DEs showed up at the Graveyard. (Unless Harry really can't tell the difference between a circle of 30 and a circle of 300.) I suppose *one* could give Lupin the benifit of the doubt and say he was including all the LV supporters versus only the Order. But I didn't expect you would be that *one*, Pippin. ;) > Pippin: > As for Reg Cattermole, how many like him are there? We know that > being a Muggleborn was not the first step on the ladder to Ministry > success. I don't suppose being married to a Muggleborn was much > better. Mike: Another good point against my gut reaction. I'm afraid I've painted myself into a corner here. I'm going to have to wait for that paint to dry, test my footing, and decide if I want to return to this room. Until then, I bow to your wisdom, ladies. > Pippin: > Further to Umbridge, I don't think she was that great as a witch. > > McGonagall or Flitwick could have beaten her, Dumbledore *did* > beat her. Mike: I always had the impression that most of the Hogwarts professors were more powerfully magical than almost anyone else. Still, I didn't think Delores was poor. Not near as good as Minerva or Filius, but I figured she could more than hold her own against your run-of-the-mill witch or wizard. Interesting that you had a different impression. Mike From magnolia11875 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 20 07:20:21 2008 From: magnolia11875 at yahoo.com (magnolia11875) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 07:20:21 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Classes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180779 Hello everyone I've lurked for a while, but I just felt like posting this. I'm sure this is a topic that's been covered quite extensively over time on this group, but it's a little hard to search for topics (for me at least), and anyway, it's interesting to start your own and see where it goes. Especially since it's unlikely that if I did respond to a much earlier post that many people would notice it. It seems to me that the Hogwarts classes are a little lacking. You have the core classes and then the very few electives, i.e. Ancient Runes, Arithmancy, Care of Magical Creatures, Divination and Muggle Studies. And yet the magical world is so rich with different types of magic and applications of magic and you can see the basics of the advanced forms in the other classes, but it just seems strange to me that other classes aren't offered. And it's not as though magical classes don't come to mind easily, they certainly do. For me, at least. Magical theory and magical ethics seem as though they should be taught in some form, given how you're basically equipping every child with a fully loaded weapon in teaching them how to use their wands. Warding, protective magics, ritualistic magic all seem like they're used in the wizarding world and yet you don't hear much about them in any of the classes. I also find it quite strange that they don't have an introduction to magic and basic household and everyday magic class option for those coming from a non-magical background who can't pick up the normal way of doing things in the magical world as far as care of house and self is concerned. Can anyone think of any others and why they might not be offered? Do you think that perhaps at some point in the past they did offer additional classes and for some reason dropped them? It also seems strange to me that the school is so understaffed. The teachers barely have enough time in the day to teach, let alone grade. There certainly can't be any form of supervision. Thoughts? I'd really love to hear them. And I apologize if I'm bringing up something discussed to exhaustion previously. DS From falkeli at yahoo.com Sun Jan 20 12:34:56 2008 From: falkeli at yahoo.com (hp_fan_2008) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:34:56 -0000 Subject: Did Snape ever believe the Trio about........... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180780 Danielle: > So after reading book 7 and I think someone on the leaky forum may have said this, reading the 3rd book has new meaning now, Snape hated Sirius not because of the Worst Memory scene or the Prank he played on Snape, instead Snape hated Sirius because he always believed Sirius was the secret keeper for the potters and Snape thought it was because of Sirius Lily died. hp_fan_2008: This assumes that Snape knew the official story of Sirius's arrest. Danielle: > I mean just say that Snape did believe that Wormtail was the SK andthe traitor, makes ya wonder how strong Snape is, cause I couldn't have standed have Wormtail in my house for a summer, I would have killed him before the end of the 1st day lol. hp_fan_2008: And could you have a conversation with Bellatrix without informing the ministry that she is in your house? From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Jan 20 16:18:04 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:18:04 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Realistic Ootcomes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0801200818w671cc40cged4c8e1bde7e3634@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180781 Mike: And let's not forget Molly v. Bella. Did you ever get the impression that Molly was powerfully magical before this? I know I didn't. Lynda: Now, I, on the other hand never had a moment's doubt while reading the series that Molly Weasley was a highly skilled, very powerful witch who simply chose to turn her abilities toward homekeeping for the most part. I simply saw no indication of incompetence from her. Worry, frustration, irritation and anger at times, but not incompetence. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 20 17:57:19 2008 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 20 Jan 2008 17:57:19 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 1/20/2008, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1200851839.10.6869.m36@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180782 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday January 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 Jan 20 18:12:58 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:12:58 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180783 > Pippin: > Where does canon indicate that it's good? Does anyone finish the > story and want to be a House Elf? Or think that Harry, Ron or > Hermione should replace Kreacher with another Elf when > Kreacher dies? > > Magpie: > Who said anything about wanting to be a house elf? It's being a house > elf owner that's the sweet deal. Should they replace Kreacher when he > dies? Sure, why not? Wouldn't you miss the wonderful cooking and > somebody doing all your cleaning for you? Pippin: Yup, that's why I pay people to do those things If Harry can't find an Elf who wants paying, he can hire a wizard who's good at Householdey spells, or maybe a Squib like Filch. It's not like Harry can't afford it. > Pippin: > Sure, we might want to own a House Elf if we could fool ourselves > into thinking we'd always treat them kindly, but how is that > different than wishing we could sample a dose of amortentia or > experience the bliss of an Imperius curse? > > Magpie: > Exactly why I think owning a slave is problematic whether the slave > is happy or willing or not. But I doubt JKR would say Harry or > Hermione couldn't be trusted with the responsibility. Pippin: ::splutters:: but isn't that exactly what isolating the issue of the slaves' happiness from the issue of slavery does? Allow us to examine whether owning a slave is problematic whether the slave is happy or not? Harry had to accept the responsibility and so he makes the best of it; that's Harry's way. But would anyone say he's never going to lose his temper with Kreacher, never going to give a command that Kreacher can't obey, always be quick enough to prevent Kreacher from punishing himself, never be fooled into letting Kreacher obey someone who would mistreat him, never tire of Kreacher's ways nor fail to support him if he becomes too old or sick to work? Of course Kreacher loves Harry and would forgive him any lapses (I hope!) But love doesn't always last. And House Elves don't always love their masters. Kreacher certainly didn't love Sirius one bit, and I doubt he would have changed his mind if Sirius had been nicer to him. Who can say whether Kreacher will always love Harry? All in all, it's a heavy-duty commitment to undertake for the sake of domestic services, IMO. I don't envy Harry his sandwich. > Magpie: > How is this supposed to be relevent? I don't see Harry's final > thoughts on his house elf reading at all like an ominous note of > Harry being on his way to alcoholism by ending the book reaching for > a drink. I don't read any hints of danger in the text in Harry owning > Kreacher. Pippin: It's relevant in that not labeling slave owners as wicked is not the same thing as seeing nothing wrong with slavery. Even if you do think that something is wicked, the moral approach may not be the best one to take. I'll give another example: vegetarianism. You could be against eating meat on moral grounds, but feel that the best way to persuade non-vegetarians is to emphasize the health benefits. The hint of danger in the text is what happened to Sirius. Sirius didn't see any danger in owning Kreacher. He was not a cruel man and believed in treating House Elves well generally. He never perceived himself as a bad master. As far as he was concerned, it was Kreacher who was being a bad elf. Would rules for better treatment, such as Apocryphal!Hermione might institute at the DRCoMC, prevent another Sirius/Kreacher debacle? I don't think so. Sirius never ordered Kreacher to take poison, he never ordered him to do extra punishments like the Malfoys with Dobby, he certainly didn't use him as a spy or involve him in a kidnapping, or ask him to perform anything but a House Elf's normal duties. I'm not sure he even committed verbal harrassment - did he ever utter a threat or use any language worse than 'toerag'? And yet if Sirius had not owned a House Elf, he would probably be alive, and Harry would still have a godfather. Until House Elves are allowed to choose their own masters and can decide on their own to leave if they're unhappy, until they're allowed to be unhappy without punishing themselves, until, in other words, they are free, they will be a danger to the whole society. Pippin From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 20 18:31:09 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:31:09 -0000 Subject: House-Elves again (Was: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180784 > > a_svirn > > Is this an argument pro slavery or contra? > > > Carol responds: > > I don't know how to answer that question. Of course, I'm not > pro-slavery in RL. I'm saying that the human-House-Elf relationship, > unless abused, is mutually beneficial and is not comparable to slavery > in RL. I'm also arguing that House-Elves are not entirely helpless, as > Kreacher illustrates. He's not about to serve a master he doesn't > respect in any useful way. a_svirn: Except that he *has* to serve any such master, whether he's about to or not. Because he has no choice, because he is his master's slave. And I wasn't asking whether you are pro slavery in real life. I think we can take it as a given that every one on this list isn't. I just didn't understand how Kreacher's rebelliousness proves that human- elves relationship is mutually beneficial. > Carol: > We agree that Kreacher and Dobby are each unhappy in their own way > (and each finds a way to thwart his master's will), but neither of > them is a normal House-Elf. a_svirn: Well, we don't. Ok for Dobby, let's say that he's an oddity. But Kreacher is a perfectly normal house-elf, thank you very much, much more normal than some. > Carol: If House-Elves are given what they want > (like the House-Elves at Hogwarts), they're happy. In turn, they give > "good service," making their owners happy. The owners, in turn, thank > them or compliment them, making them happier still. The only problem > is the enchantment that forces them to punish themselves when they > disobey their masters. a_svirn: This is by no means the only problem. In fact it isn't a problem at all. It is a problem for the likes of Hermione, who still can't quite squire the whole thing with their consciousness. But if we were to take elves' own perspective it wouldn't be a problem at all. Not one of the elves we have seen close up regards self-punishment as a problem. Whereas two out three elves ? two-thirds of our elvish acquaintance ? saw being compelled to serve their masters against their will as a problem. And Winky saw being dismissed with ignominy as a problem. In all three cases their status as slaves was the root of their problems, not the self-punishment thing. > Carol: *That's* what makes them "slaves," and that's > what Hermione is disturbed about in HBP. a_svirn. I beg to differ. The fact that they are owned make them slaves. > Carol: > Let *them* decide what makes them happy. That's the lesson Hermione > learns, IMO. a_svirn: Let's. The goal is impossible to achieve simply by removing self- punishment from the equation though. Considering that Hermione is the only one who seems unhappy about it. > > Carol, still wondering what this glorious "freedom" to be imposed on > the House-Elves against their will would consist of > a_svirn: There is no such thing as a freedom imposed against one's will, is there? Dismissal isn't the same thing as freedom. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 20 18:37:29 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:37:29 -0000 Subject: Realistic Outcomes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180785 > > Mike: > Pippin, you keep bringing up the Dementors as if they're Voldemorts > ace in the hole. I admit they were scary creatures to a 13-year-old > Harry that didn't know what to do about them. But Harry can cast a > Patronus that can vanquish hundreds of them now, and it'll hang > around for a long time. (witness his MoM raid Prongs). Besides, > there are now a lot of people other than just Harry that can cast > Patroni. I just don't see them as that formidible against wizards > willing to fight them. > Pippin: They're not just scary to Harry. Most adult wizards are scared of them, and only a few know how to fight them or are powerful enough to do so. Casting a patronus is very advanced magic, according to Lupin, far beyond OWLs. Remember, it took quite a long time for Harry to learn the spell, and even more before he could cast it reliably. Only a few of the DA members were able to master it. They can't be everywhere at once. Just knowing they are going to face dementors is enough to give most wizards the collywobbles. Mike: > Inferi - I can't say. We only saw them in action in the cave. But > Dumbledore took care of them with a simple fire charm. Heck, Hermione > was using fire charms in first year. It's just my impression. YMMV. Pippin: Hermione's charm is bluebell flames -- no idea whether it works on Inferi. Dumbledore's charm is more like the golden jet of fire that Harry used during his escape, the one he had no idea how he'd cast. We never see Hermione conjure a ring of flame and maintain it the way Dumbledore did. I don't think that's simple magic. Plus there'd be problems using a spell like that in close quarters or near something you don't want to set on fire. > > Pippin: > > Consider the number of dead in Moody's photo, and Lupin's > > statement that The Order had been outnumbered. Most wizards > > survived the first war by _not_ fighting. > > Mike: > Yeah, I remember Lupin's "outnumbered 20:1". And yet only 30 or so > DEs showed up at the Graveyard. (Unless Harry really can't tell the > difference between a circle of 30 and a circle of 300.) I suppose > *one* could give Lupin the benifit of the doubt and say he was > including all the LV supporters versus only the Order. But I didn't > expect you would be that *one*, Pippin. ;) Pippin: Hee! There's this idea that I hate Lupin. I don't. I never wanted him to be evil so he could be punished. I was just amazed at the way his supporters kept explaining away his (to me) obvious shortcomings. Of course those shortcomings, to be real, had to have a purpose in the story, so I invented one. That it wasn't the one JKR had in mind doesn't trouble me too much. After Vampire!Snape got shot down it was clear I had no future as a mindreader. And I knew my theory would have plenty of company at the bottom of The Bay. (So, Alla, I am perfectly okay with the way Lupin's story came out. ) There are several references to Voldemort's Inner Circle. Those would be the 30 or so DE's who showed up at the graveyard. But there were all those people in masks and robes who rioted at the QWC. I doubt those were the same Death Eaters, after all it's only Lucius who is blamed for Muggle-torturing when he could have been rescuing his master. Most of the wizards who weren't marching ran away. Only a few went to help the Ministry. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Jan 20 18:53:40 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:53:40 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180786 > > Magpie: > > Who said anything about wanting to be a house elf? It's being a house > > elf owner that's the sweet deal. Should they replace Kreacher when he > > dies? Sure, why not? Wouldn't you miss the wonderful cooking and > > somebody doing all your cleaning for you? > > Pippin: > Yup, that's why I pay people to do those things > > If Harry can't find an Elf who wants paying, he can hire a wizard who's > good at Householdey spells, or maybe a Squib like Filch. It's not like > Harry can't afford it. Magpie: Or maybe he'll just find some other house elf who doesn't want paying but could use a kind master like Harry. Then he'd have the same good life Kreacher does. As far as the book's considered, we just end with Harry being a good master to his elf that he owns, period. Having an elf is a lot more pleasant than hiring a Sqiub like Filch--far better, in fact. And it's better than hiring a Wizard. For the elf owner, it's the sweetest deal around. > > Magpie: > > Exactly why I think owning a slave is problematic whether the slave > > is happy or willing or not. But I doubt JKR would say Harry or > > Hermione couldn't be trusted with the responsibility. > > Pippin: > ::splutters:: but isn't that exactly what isolating the issue of the > slaves' happiness from the issue of slavery does? Allow us to > examine whether owning a slave is problematic whether the > slave is happy or not? Magpie: Only if the book actually suggests the problem exists. In HP it certainly shows that there's a problem if you're a bad Wizard like Lucius, but no I don't see any indication that there's any problem with Dumbledore or Harry or Hermione owning a slave. And given the pov that comes through in a lot of the book that seems pretty consistent--power should be held by the good guys. Pippin: > Harry had to accept the responsibility and so he makes the > best of it; that's Harry's way. Magpie: You make it sound as if "making the best of it" is Harry trying to deal with Kreacher with a smile on his face. In fact it's more like he's "having the best of it"--having Kreacher wait on him with a smile is great and not a sacrifice for Harry at all. Pippin: But would anyone say he's never going > to lose his temper with Kreacher, never going to give a command > that Kreacher can't obey, always be quick enough to prevent > Kreacher from punishing himself, never be fooled into letting > Kreacher obey someone who would mistreat him, never tire > of Kreacher's ways nor fail to support him if he becomes > too old or sick to work? Magpie: I don't remember Harry worrying about these things, and given how great I hear this Harry Potter fellow is, no I don't think he'll ever really have a problem with this. Yeah if he makes a mistake (not that I think he would) it'll be a shame that Kreacher has to punish himself--but good old Harry will no doubt swoop in to stop him if that happens because he's a good guy. Iow, sure I think there's plenty of groundwork here for somebody to write a fanfic about Harry's house elf ownership leading to dark and terrible things for Harry, but unless JKR writes this particular Darkfic I will stick with the impression that Harry and Kreacher will be perfectly happy in their arrangement with Harry not having had any moral disintegration at all, as I believe you agreed with. The fact that *I* can see problems with house elf ownership even if you're a good person doesn't mean the author is dramatizing that problem. There are plenty of things that I see as problems the author doesn't seem to see as problems. Pippin: > Of course Kreacher loves Harry and would forgive him any lapses > (I hope!) But love doesn't always last. And House Elves don't always > love their masters. Kreacher certainly didn't love Sirius one bit, and > I doubt he would have changed his mind if Sirius had been nicer to > him. Who can say whether Kreacher will always love Harry? Magpie: The book ends with Kreacher loving Harry with no end in sight. I can't discuss this scenario as having anything to do with canon when it's not there. Again, these are all perfectly valid things for me to wonder about outside of canon, sure. But that doesn't make them written into the story. I could just as easily argue against this ever happening at all--I honestly couldn't imagine it being written that way by JKR. Harry's made Kreacher do things that were painful to him before--but only for the greater good of course! Pippin: > > All in all, it's a heavy-duty commitment to undertake for the sake > of domestic services, IMO. I don't envy Harry his sandwich. Magpie: Me neither. But I don't see Harry worrying about it. Nothing he can do, right? So he might as well have the sandwich. And if he maybe thinks he should get the sandwich himself he can tell himself that Kreacher would be hurt to hear he troubled himself about it rather than ordering him around. Any time he enjoys his power or the convenience he can just tell himself he's doing it for Kreacher. > > Magpie: > > How is this supposed to be relevent? I don't see Harry's final > > thoughts on his house elf reading at all like an ominous note of > > Harry being on his way to alcoholism by ending the book reaching for > > a drink. I don't read any hints of danger in the text in Harry owning > > Kreacher. > > Pippin: > It's relevant in that not labeling slave owners as wicked is not the same > thing as seeing nothing wrong with slavery. Even if you do think that > something is wicked, the moral approach may not be the best > one to take. I'll give another example: vegetarianism. You could > be against eating meat on moral grounds, but feel that the best way > to persuade non-vegetarians is to emphasize the health benefits. Magpie: So creating a situation that's heavy on sympathy and justification for slave-owning is a stronger argument against slavery even though she doesn't ever dramatize all this stuff? I don't see it. I doubt she really has to worry much about trying to pursuade the part of her audience that's pro-slavery since she can probably assume she's writing to what would be vegetarians here. Pippin: > > The hint of danger in the text is what happened to Sirius. > Sirius didn't see any danger in owning Kreacher. He was not a cruel > man and believed in treating House Elves well generally. He never > perceived himself as a bad master. As far as he was concerned, it > was Kreacher who was being a bad elf. > > Would rules for better treatment, such as Apocryphal!Hermione > might institute at the DRCoMC, prevent another Sirius/Kreacher > debacle? I don't think so. Magpie: That's Sirius. Harry, otoh, learns that lesson about treating the House Elf well and it works splendidly--all without freeing the elf. Harry is the good master. Would rules about treatment stop something like what happened with Sirius? No, probably not since rules don't do much in this universe (though to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if laws passed by Hermione were more helpful than any passed now, since the idea of laws tends to be inconsistent). However, none of this says that it's not perfectly fine for Harry, who is superior to Sirius, to own a slave. Heck, Harry was already trickier than Sirius when he was ordering around Angry!Kreacher in HBP. He made sure not to give him any loopholes to work against him, but he still used him as a slave-- even with Dobby volunteering for the same job. Pippin: Until House Elves are > allowed to choose their own masters and can decide on their own to > leave if they're unhappy, until they're allowed to be unhappy without > punishing themselves, until, in other words, they are free, > they will be a danger to the whole society. Magpie: Kreacher, however, is happy with Harry--he has "chosen" his master. The fact that they can't be unhappy without punishing themselves is unpleasant but as far as we know there's nothing Master Harry can do about it. And I don't see how all this leads up to "until they are free" they are a danger to the society since it just runs you right into the same problem as before, which is that they don't want to be free. Harry and Kreacher have solved all these problems in their relationship--Kreacher is happy with his master and so is not unhappy and may never have to punish himself again. So what's the problem? Harry would no doubt let Kreacher free if he wanted to be free. But since he's really better off as a slave given his psychology Harry will make the best of it and be waited on. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 20 18:55:40 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:55:40 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180787 > >> Magpie: > > Here's where I get my impression that they see them as what we > would > > call slaves: They claim them as property. They have to do what > their > > masters say. They live to serve their masters. > > > > What does it mean to say they don't understand slavery the same > way > > we do? The only differences I see in the way they understand it > and > > the way we do is that they hold the belief that it is the natural > > order, that it's beneficial to the elf, that it isn't immoral on > the > > part of the owner. > > Alla: > > The beneficial to the slave part? I mean you ( generic you) keep > saying that elf's POV does not matter, but wizards ARE aware of that > POV that elves indeed live to serve the master, and to me it is > very different from human slavery. That to me changes everything, I > mean if I want to keep owning house elf because it is good for him ( > and of course good for me) is different from human slavery because > it is not good for human to be owned. a_svirn: But that's altogether different matter. It is one thing to say that elves aren't slaves. It is quite another thing to say that there is no harm in their being slaves since it is just the way they like it. But you seem to be agreeing with both these statements here. They are mutually exclusive, however. > > > Magpie: > > Okay, so we're talking about "slavery" being a slippery term like > > child abuse that's in the eye of the beholder? So basically it's > like > > Wizards saying they're not enslaved enough to be considered > slaves? > > Alla: > > No not at all. We are talking about what is happening to house elves > to be considered slavery in one society and not one in another. a_svirn: And what is happening to them? They are being owned. They are being someone else's property. That mean they are being slaves. That would mean being slaves in any society. Whether it is beneficial or not is another issue. Though, of course, any self-respecting slave-owning society would deem such arrangement beneficial. a_svirn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 20 20:25:43 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:25:43 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180788 > > Alla: > > > > The beneficial to the slave part? I mean you ( generic you) keep > > saying that elf's POV does not matter, but wizards ARE aware of > that > > POV that elves indeed live to serve the master, and to me it is > > very different from human slavery. That to me changes everything, > I > > mean if I want to keep owning house elf because it is good for him > ( > > and of course good for me) is different from human slavery because > > it is not good for human to be owned. > > a_svirn: > But that's altogether different matter. It is one thing to say that > elves aren't slaves. It is quite another thing to say that there is > no harm in their being slaves since it is just the way they like it. > But you seem to be agreeing with both these statements here. They are > mutually exclusive, however. Alla: Well, no, that's the point. I do not see how those statements are mutually exclusive since I am not saying that elves likes being slaves. I am saying that elves like serving the wizards even if to us it LOOKS like slavery. Oh, and again just for the record since I am an interview person, I DO think that they are supposed to be metaphor for slaves, it is just I think that canon is less than clear on that and I am trying to argue other side. I am not arguing it just for the sake of arguing, I am sort of disregarding interviews for the purpose of this argument. So, the elves are not slaves and the elves LIKE to serve the wizards to me is by no means mutually exclusive. Am I being slow here? How are they mutually exclusive? > > Alla: > > > > No not at all. We are talking about what is happening to house > elves > > to be considered slavery in one society and not one in another. > > a_svirn: > And what is happening to them? They are being owned. They are being > someone else's property. Alla: No, it is not another issue to me at all, because if you add to your list this issue, we will get something like this : They are being owned. - Sure they are. They are being > someone else's property. - Of course they are. But they also LIKE that arrangement as long as they are not abused. In what society is that happening to slaves? That is why your next sentence to me just does not follow from the rest. >That mean they are being slaves. That would > mean being slaves in any society. - See above. a_svirn: Whether it is beneficial or not is > another issue. Though, of course, any self-respecting slave-owning > society would deem such arrangement beneficial. Alla: That's the thing. It is NOT slave-owning society position that such arrangement is beneficial, I mean scratch that, it is not ONLY the society position, it is those alleged slaves position as well. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 20 21:07:46 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:07:46 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180789 > > Magpie: > Only if the book actually suggests the problem exists. In HP it > certainly shows that there's a problem if you're a bad Wizard like > Lucius, but no I don't see any indication that there's any problem > with Dumbledore or Harry or Hermione owning a slave. Pippin: No problem? Even though Dumbledore would never use an Elf as a poison tester, his ownership allowed Slughorn to do so. Sirius said that an elf is supposed to obey every member of the family. Hermione's married to Ron. Harry's son is James. Nuff said. The problem with a person who thinks that they're good owning a slave was dramatized with Sirius. JKR doesn't have to dramatize it again to show me that I can't generalize from Harry's experience to the whole WW, much less the real world. Even if Harry is given the grace to do no harm, bless him, what about everyone else? Magpie: And given the > pov that comes through in a lot of the book that seems pretty > consistent--power should be held by the good guys. Pippin: You want it should be held by the bad guys ??? > Pippin: > > Harry had to accept the responsibility and so he makes the > > best of it; that's Harry's way. > Magpie: > I don't remember Harry worrying about these things, and given how > great I hear this Harry Potter fellow is, no I don't think he'll ever > really have a problem with this. Yeah if he makes a mistake (not that > I think he would) it'll be a shame that Kreacher has to punish > himself--but good old Harry will no doubt swoop in to stop him if > that happens because he's a good guy. > Pippin: But then we're talking about sheer fantasy, and not about a realistic situation at all. In which case, sure. I don't think I'd suffer if I was owned by an angel or a saint. Heck, I'll volunteer, especially if I get to live at Hogwarts and do magic. Who wouldn't? Of course there's the minor problem that saintly and angelic beings wouldn't want to own slaves, and wouldn't be seduced into thinking that slavery was an objective good no matter how many sandwiches I made for them. Oh well. Pippin From yvaine28 at gmail.com Mon Jan 21 01:05:42 2008 From: yvaine28 at gmail.com (meann ortiz) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:05:42 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Classes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d7223330801201705k486f6198mc18f565c1f809a80@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180790 magnolia11875 wrote: It seems to me that the Hogwarts classes are a little lacking. You have the core classes and then the very few electives, i.e. Ancient Runes, Arithmancy, Care of Magical Creatures, Divination and Muggle Studies. And yet the magical world is so rich with different types of magic and applications of magic and you can see the basics of the advanced forms in the other classes, but it just seems strange to me that other classes aren't offered. Meann's reply: It's possible that JKR didn't give us the full list of classes or of the faculty in Hogwarts. Usually we see only what Harry and his classmates are taking and who's teaching those classes. It's possible there are more electives and that new classes were introduced in the 7th year. We certainly didn't know much about what classes Cedric or Fred and George or Percy were taking. But I see your point. We know that if you want to be an Auror, you have a specific list of classes you should take and what grade you should get for each. But it doesn't really make for a well-rounded magical education. It covers only the basic skills you will need in your line of work. I agree there should at least be Magical Theory and Ethics or a subject about the laws of the Wizarding World or something like that. Maybe some of that is tackled in an already existing class (probably History of Magic?) but I think those topics deserve separate classes. magnolia11875 wrote: I also find it quite strange that they don't have an introduction to magic and basic household and everyday magic class option for those coming from a non-magical background who can't pick up the normal way of doing things in the magical world as far as care of house and self is concerned. Meann's reply: If I were raised in the Muggle world, I would've preferred to have these kinds of classes, I agree. But it's possible, though, that the people who thought up the syllabus of Hogwarts (the Founders?) thought that the Muggleborns probably would learn these things along the way while they're in school since Hogwarts is a boarding school. Admittedly, all the housekeeping is done by the House-Elves, but maybe basic spells related to housekeeping and such are also taught in Charms or something? To summarize: it's possible we haven't seen other classes or teachers because we usually only see things from Harry's POV. But if we do take the scenario at face value, it would seem that the syllabus is indeed lacking, and possibly, it hasn't evolved with the times as it should. I wonder what JKR's answer will be? =) Meann [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jan 21 01:56:40 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 01:56:40 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180791 > > Magpie: > > Only if the book actually suggests the problem exists. In HP it > > certainly shows that there's a problem if you're a bad Wizard like > > Lucius, but no I don't see any indication that there's any problem > > with Dumbledore or Harry or Hermione owning a slave. > > Pippin: > > No problem? Even though Dumbledore would never > use an Elf as a poison tester, his ownership allowed Slughorn > to do so. Sirius said that an elf is supposed to obey every > member of the family. > Hermione's married to Ron. Harry's son is James. Nuff said. Magpie: I didn't say that *I* had no problem with it. For me the problem doesn't even need imagining Ron or James doing anything to the House Elves (which doesn't actually seem like a big danger anyway). I'm just not convinced I just read a book dramatizing House Elves ownership as a problem for good owners because of these things you imagine here. (I don't even remember Slughorn using House Elves as poison testers to be honest. I don't doubt it happened, but I definitely don't recall it as something that seemed to be there to dramatize that Dumbledore owning House Elves was bad--Dumbledore who has offered their freedom and they refused it.) Pippin: > > The problem with a person who thinks that they're good owning > a slave was dramatized with Sirius. JKR doesn't have to dramatize > it again to show me that I can't generalize from Harry's experience > to the whole WW, much less the real world. Even if Harry is given > the grace to do no harm, bless him, what about everyone else? Magpie: I didn't say anything about generalizing from Harry's experience. We've already seen owners that aren't as good as Harry within canon. That doesn't change that I don't see Harry/Kreacher dramatizing anything bad for Harry. > Magpie: > And given the > > pov that comes through in a lot of the book that seems pretty > > consistent--power should be held by the good guys. > > Pippin: > You want it should be held by the bad guys ??? Magpie: No obviously I don't want it held by the bad guys. I just said the books pretty consistently imo favor more power for good guys rather than objective checks on power (and no, I haven't forgotten Harry's rejection of the Elder Wand in saying that). So in the context of this discussion, which I thought was clear, I can easily imagine seeing it in terms of of needing to curb the power of bad owners and wanting elves to have the good owners rather than getting rid of ownership in general. Which is even hinted at with the interview canon of Hermione given a position of power re: house elf rights-- Hermione is given power over the owners rather than slavery being abolished. > > Magpie: > > I don't remember Harry worrying about these things, and given how > > great I hear this Harry Potter fellow is, no I don't think he'll ever > > really have a problem with this. Yeah if he makes a mistake (not that > > I think he would) it'll be a shame that Kreacher has to punish > > himself--but good old Harry will no doubt swoop in to stop him if > > that happens because he's a good guy. > > > > Pippin: > > But then we're talking about sheer fantasy, and not about a realistic > situation at all. In which case, sure. I don't think I'd suffer if I was owned > by an angel or a saint. Heck, I'll volunteer, especially if I get to live at > Hogwarts and do magic. Magpie: A lot of the book is sheer fantasy and not a realistic situation at all. That scenario is perfectly believable for the HP series. You seem to be agreeing here with exactly what I'm arguing by saying that you actually would be fine being a House Elf and therefore owned by someone *if the person was a great owner who wouldn't abuse you ever.* So slavery isn't a problem for you if you could depend on the 'perfect' owner. Though you sell Harry and Dumbledore short imo by suggesting only an angel or a saint could provide this situation. Neither of them make their House Elves suffer--they make them happy. They even technically "don't want" to own them since Dumbledore offered to free his and Harry accepted his reluctantly. So they've rather earned their status as saintly slave owners who can enjoy being masters guilt free. Pippin: > Who wouldn't? Magpie: Me. I wouldn't want to be a House Elf slave no matter who owned me. Pippin: > > Of course there's the minor problem that saintly and angelic beings > wouldn't want to own slaves, and wouldn't be seduced into thinking > that slavery was an objective good no matter how many sandwiches > I made for them. Oh well. Magpie: You don't have to be what JKR would call "a saint" (iow, not Harry) or angelic in order to be a good master for a house elf. You can just be Harry or Hermione or Dumbledore wanting the elf to have a better home that it might with a worse owner. You can even be somebody who allegedly "wouldn't want" to own a slave if you got one dumped in your lap and bravely had to "make the best of it" by enjoying the perks. Sure I imagine JKR wouldn't say that even this situation wasn't *ideal* to have House Elves be slaves at all, since that makes them vulnerable to bad masters, but no, I don't see that she thinks we shouldn't be perfectly fine with Harry's owning Kreacher since Kreacher wants to be owned and would be so unhappy if he wasn't owned. Certainly I don't see any hints that this is bad of Harry, which is what the conversation is about. Alla is arguing this perfectly logically elsewhere in the thread that the fact that the elves want to be owned makes all the difference (or at least she can see it not making a difference, whether or not she personally thinks that it does--she understands that pov). Many people get that from the books. There have been remarks on this group arguing pretty much that, that since they want to be owned, it's not bad to own them, it's only bad to mistreat them once you do own them. > > Carol: > If House-Elves are given what they want > > (like the House-Elves at Hogwarts), they're happy. In turn, they > give > > "good service," making their owners happy. The owners, in turn, > thank > > them or compliment them, making them happier still. The only problem > > is the enchantment that forces them to punish themselves when they > > disobey their masters. > > a_svirn: > This is by no means the only problem. In fact it isn't a problem at > all. It is a problem for the likes of Hermione, who still can't quite > squire the whole thing with their consciousness. But if we were to > take elves' own perspective it wouldn't be a problem at all. Not one > of the elves we have seen close up regards self-punishment as a > problem. Whereas two out three elves ? two-thirds of our elvish > acquaintance ? saw being compelled to serve their masters against > their will as a problem. And Winky saw being dismissed with ignominy > as a problem. In all three cases their status as slaves was the root > of their problems, not the self-punishment thing. Magpie: Yes, I think these issues get conflated. The self-punishment is something repulsive to Wizards like Hermione and Harry, and something perhaps enjoyable to a Wizard like Lucius. But it's not what makes them slaves. It's something Wizards care about more than House Elves as far as we see. (Perhaps because that's when they most look like slaves under a compulsive enchantment rather than a person who loves them freely and likes to see them happy in a mutually beneficial way. Many slave owners would probably prefer to think they're being served out of love.) Ultimately Hermione's switches away from house elf freedom to good treatment for owned house elves. That to me sounds like a shift to the view of slave-owning being legitimate. It's not dealing with the problem of owning the slave but the self-punishment that is repulsive to (some) Wizard owners. It's a problem with the elves that must be fixed, if anything. If Kreacher no longer self-punished would Hermione be perfectly happy with his being owned by Harry and following orders for the Trio? If so, then she's not anti- slavery/anti-house-elf-ownership because that's a separate issue. -m From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 21 03:57:04 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:57:04 -0000 Subject: House Elves Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180792 Mike Crudele wrote in : << She has learned that she can't improve the elves lot by freeing them, but instead by eliminating the self-punishment aspect which, I assume, was what wizards contributed to the house elf condition. (Speculating - that assumption) >> I agree that it's very important to lift the enchantment on the House Elves and that is a long-term project. In the mean time, they can be made to stop punishing themselves by ordering them not to punish themselves. To the extent that their compulsion to punish themselves is psychological rather than magical, they can have therapy and support groups. There seems to be some belief that House Elves can't use their great magic powers except to fulfill their master's orders. Some humans and perhaps some House Elves seem to think that that is part of the enchantment on them. I think not -- Dobby, while still enslaved, did bunches of strong magic on his own initiative and as an obstacle to his master's goal. However, we don't actually know what will happen if the enchantment on House Elves is lifted. Perhaps they will turn back into the most vicious and nasty of Goblins. I like to blame the wizards for everything, and thus assume that it was wizards who captured and enchanted the first House Elves (who may have been housework-loving brownies or bloodthirsty Red Caps or something else before being captured, maybe captive wizards who were crossed with dogs and chimpanzees). But maybe it was Goblins who got fed up with the unprovoked murder and biting of peaceful Goblins by one gang of intensely obnoxious Goblins who joined together to capture the obnoxious ones and deliver them to local wizards with the instructions "You may keep these Goblins as slaves if you can keep them as slaves. If they annoy any of us Goblins in the future, we will kill them." If it's anything like that, once the enchantment is lifted, they won't want to live in wizarding houses even if the wizards do the housework, and wizards won't want them anywhere near. Someone once suggested that the Old Elves were terribly violent beings and almost wiped themselves out in wars and feuds. And after one terrible battle, the only Old Elves left were one male and one female from opposing sides. And they decided to make a peace treaty and get married and continue the species of Elves. But when their second son killed their first son in a quarrel, they figured the only way to prevent their children from completing the suicide of the species was to put an enchantment on all their descendants that they would live with no goal but to serve a wizard family. I can't imagine what the wizards had done to deserve this boon, but House Elves have their own kind of logic. Pippin wrote in : << His take was that Elves who don't want to serve wizards shouldn't have to, but Elves who do want to serve wizards are well off. Hokey changed his mind about that. Having a kind mistress didn't help her.>> Hokey's problem was not that she was a House Elf nor that she was a slave nor that wizarding law is wrong. Just as Tom Sr's parents' problem was not that they were rich Muggle freemen and Hepzibah Smith's problem was not that she was a rich witch freewoman and Morfin Gaunt's problem was not that he was a poor wizard freeman. All of them's problem was that they were the victims of Tom Jr's criminal acts which violated wizarding law and mostly violated wizarding community standards. If Hokey was a paid servant with every Sunday morning and Thursday night and a solid fortnight once a year off, and freedom to quit her job without notice, she still would have worked for Mistress Smith, and Mistress Smith still would have been murdered, and Hokey been framed for it, by Tom Jr. Carol wrote in : << still wondering what this glorious "freedom" to be imposed on the House-Elves against their will would consist of >> 1) Freedom from being compelled to punish themselves. In the long term, by removing the 'enchantment'. Possibly in the medium term by an anti-self-punishment potion that needs to be invented, and by psychotherapy and support groups. In the short term, by ordering them not to hurt themselves. 2) Freedom from being abused. Laws must be passed AND enforced against cruelty to House Elves. SPEW should have been WSPCHE, Wizarding Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to House Elves. SPCA/LA also has programs in public schools for teaching children that animals have feelings, too, which WSPCHE might want to emulate. 2.5) House Elves taken away from egregiously abusive employers would feel the same as children taken away from egregiously abusive parents -- that they are the ones being punished, not the masters/parents. This is a bad thing, which WSPCHE should have a rehabilitation (brainwashing and re-employment) program to help displaced House Elves with. 3) Freedom to leave an unwanted employer and seek another. Of course, it's only fair that the employer would have the right to sack an unwanted House Elf and seek another. Some House Elves might have to swallow their pride and work in a modern tract house or a condo. Some wizards might have to swallow their pride and actually PAY the House Elf. To make sure that both House Elves and wizards know their rights and duties, a law that both must sign an employment contract. Yes, the law intrudes between House Elves and wizards who have lived together happily for decades, forcing them to sign some stupid contract. I don't intend that 1, 2, and 3 mean chronological order. All must be pursued immediately. Perhaps some wizards can be persuaded to order their House Elves not to punish themselves, and even persuaded to present their House Elves with an employment contract and some kind of clothes in a bag with an explanation that I don't give you these clothes now, I put them over here and I give them to you any time you want them in the future. Most won't do anything of the kind until it is required by a law that is enforced. It will be easier to explain the employment contract to the House Elf if it can be blamed on a new law. 3.5) Can we rely on the free market to spontaneously generate a House Elf employment agency? An 'Elves Seeking Houses' section of classified ads in Witch Weekly? A particular bulletin board in Hogsmead where wizards post House Elf Wanted notices? 4) At first, most House Elves would stay where they are. As the idea of leaving an unwanted employer became more common, some House Elves might decide to leave and go into business for themselves, such as running a hotel or restaurant or laundry. Or an employment agency for other House Elves. This might require laws to come into sync with reality about House Elves having property rights and so on. Maybe the House Elves would rather start their own Credit Union than do their banking with Goblins. 5) Eventually, WSPCHE should gracefully retire, replaced by the House Elf Self Help Association. 6) Maybe some House Elves eventually will want to pursue entirely different careers, as curse-breakers and potioneers and Healers and joke manufacturers and book publishers. Maybe someday they'll drift so far from domestic work that more of them hire wizards as domestic servants than are hired by wizards as domestic servants. Pippin wrote in : << never tire of Kreacher's ways nor fail to support him if he becomes too old or sick to work? >> Do we know anything about whether House Elves ever become too old or sick to work? There was Sirius's remark about his relative who started the Black family custom of beheading House Elves when they got too weak to carry a tea tray, but it has been pointed out to me that maybe as soon as House Elves get too feeble to work, they lie down and die from grief, and all the Blacks did was to cut off and taxiderm the heads of already dead Elves. My lack of knowledge about House Elf old age is why I didn't mention House Elf old age pensions in my reply to Carol. There could be requirements for employers to pay into a pension fund while the Elf works for them, or the Elf could save for retirement from his pay. If House Elves do have a feeble old age, I imagine that traditionally, they remain in the house (perhaps in a hidden place) and are cared for by the next House Elf, usually a descendant. (Does Kreachy have any descendants?) That's another business some independent House Elf might start some day: board and care homes for elderly House Elves. << And yet if Sirius had not owned a House Elf, he would probably be alive, and Harry would still have a godfather. Until House Elves are allowed to choose their own masters and can decide on their own to leave if they're unhappy, until they're allowed to be unhappy without punishing themselves, until, in other words, they are free, they will be a danger to the whole society. >> I don't see how Kreachy being free to quit would have prevented this problem. Unless you think, if he had been free, he would have left the portrait of Mrs Black and gone to serve Miss Narcissa while Sirius was still in Azkaban. Which raises an interesting question, if Dobby only yearned for freedom because the Malfoys abused him so much, could Lucius (with some assistance from Draco, and I can't see why Narcissa would be sentimental enough to stop her men from abusing her old family's House Elf) have abused Kreachy so much that he came to yearn for freedom? Because if Kreachy stayed with the portrait of his beloved Mrs Black until Sirius came to live at 12 Grimmauld Place, then left because he hated Sirius, he would have gone to Miss Narcissa and told her that the blood traitor son who had broken Mistress's heart was back violating Mistress's home as if he owned the place, just because he did. Do you think Narcissa wouldn't send him back to spy on Sirius? Do you think Sirius could keep him him from coming into the house and eavesdropping even if he wasn't working there? From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 21 04:13:46 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:13:46 -0000 Subject: wizarding genetics / # of students at Hogwarts / Slytherin House / 20 to 1 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180793 Carol wrote in : << It's as impossible as (snip) the blond, light-eyed Malfoys giving birth to a black-eyed, black-haired child who resembles Severus Snape.>> Maybe not. If Narcissa is a Metamorphmagus, then her fair complexion and pale hair could come from magic while her genes would have had her looking like Andromeda and Bellatrix. Then her child could have looked like a Black, and a Black who let his hair go greasy would resemble Severus. Severus's nose is bigger and more hooked, but it has never seemed to me that the Blacks were lacking in the nose department. Bruce Alan Wilson wrote in : << My opinion is that there are two sets of genes--one that enables one to sense magical energies, and one that enables one to manipulate them. If one has both, one is a wizard; if one can sense them, but cannot manipulate them, one is a Squib. >> You may be right, but I'm in love with my own idea, which is that there is one set of genes that (mm) normally gives both the sensing of magic and the doing of magic, but still gives the sensing of magic (plus bonus communication with cats) even when outside reasons prevent it from giving the doing of magic. << Muggleborn Squibs are what we call Psychics, Mediums, etc. >> I kind of think so, too. On another tentacle, suppose "psychic" powers of telepathy, telekinesis and clairvoyance (of future, past, or distant present) exist in the Potterverse entirely separate from Potterverse magic. There are these Muggles who, with only self-training, can do things none of the wizarding folk can do... falkeli wrote in : << I find it hard to believe that there were only 40 wizard/witch deaths during September 1979 - August 1980. Many of the students in Harry's year do have wizard/witch ancestry - so there doesn't seem to have been a big muggle-born batch that year. In addition, this theory predicts that 3 years below Harry (Dennis Creevey's year) there shouldn't be any muggle-borns, as this would have been when the babies of the baby boom would be born. >> I figured, by my own non-mathematical methods, that there must be at least 1000 Hogwarts age kids to maintain a British wizard population of about 20,000, which I figure is the smallest that could maintain all those different businesses and sports teams, even if most of them are really only paid hobbies for people who have incomes (such as from inherited money) enough to survive on. Maybe I need to dream about that some more now that Dumbledore was 115 rather than 150. It might need to be more than 1000. But I was gratified when JKR, outside the books, answered the question of how many students are at Hogwarts as 'about a thousand'. She also said that Hogwarts was the only wizarding school in Britain. This led to much debate, in which some listie (I've forgotten who) produced the unforgettable post: 7 years * 4 Houses * 10 students (per year in each House) = 1000 **** That Arithmancy is sure some powerful magic! My theory, accepted by no one but me, is that Hogwarts has three or four campuses. The original campus, from the Founders, is the Castle. But only the top 40 students each year are sent there (ranked by a combination of magical power rating, social class, and political pull). The others are sent to the other campuses. (Colloquially, Hogwarts at the Castle is 'Hogwarts' and Hogwarts at e.g. Wyvernwood is 'Wyvernwood', similar to the way the University of California at Berkeley is 'Cal' and the University of California at Los Angeles is 'UCLA'.) Harry's entering class may have been larger than the standard 140-something (1000/7) but only the other campuses would have been crowded, because the Castle would still take only the top 40. (If there was to be a maximum of 10 students per House per year, I would have made it the top 35 so no House would get too many, but JKR invented 41 students to be in Harry's year.) Hogwarts Castle is such a HUGE structure (I assume that the Founders built it that way to show off) that I have wondered if all three campuses might be at Hogwarts Castle, just magically invisible and so on to each other. They might each have their own Great Hall, on different floors, one atop the other, that look like dusty abandoned rooms to students of other campuses... Magpie wrote in : << There's actually no call on Slytherin whatsoever to change-- they are what they are. So we're left with the question asked here: why are they suffered to remain? To me it seems like the answer to that question is found in the psychology of the WW and the author. It's comforting to somebody to have this house in the form that it exists, periodically gaining power and then symbolically brought low- -but never healed or destroyed. >> I still think that the majority of wizards and witches think that bloodism and slavery and Dark Magic and murder among people who know each other and bribery and embezzlement and many other things that us readers think are very bad things that should be abolished, are matters of personal taste. But murdering people who don't know you, confiscating the wands of all the Muggle-borns, and some other activities go beyond what the majority is willing to put up with. So our 'good guys' are temporary heroes for putting an end to a tyranny of multiple murderers who were really bad for business. But if our 'good guys' then suggested abolishing Slytherin House, or teaching Ethics and Mugglecultural Sensitivity and Non Violent Conflict Resolution to every kid in Hogwarts every year, the survivors of the 'bad guys' (not every bloodist bigot or dark arts dabbler was found guilty of anything more than keeping his head down during the crisis) will protest that those Gryffindors, the self-proclaimed Light Side, are trying to impose their opinions on everyone and not allowing freedom of thought, and the majority of wizards and witches will agree with them. << [Salazar] was a founder--we don't know why. Perhaps Gryffindor, too, was temporary blinded by his gift for magic. >> When I tried to write fanfic about it, I always assumed that the other Founders figured if would be safer to have him on the inside of their project where they could keep an eye on him than to have him roaming loose unobserved, and that getting him to view the school as his own project would lead him to help it rather than harm it, for pride reasons. Pippin wrote in : << If they learn to seek purity of soul rather than purity of blood, they could become the most moral of the houses. >> Among human beings, it is not unknown for those who consider themselves the most moral to seek purity by killing everyone who doesn't agree with their system of morals. There could have been times when the dictator who took over was a Gryffindor who massacred Slytherins. Then it might have been some Dark Wizards with a sense of self-preservation who conquered him and were viewed as heroes for a while. Mike wrote in : << Yeah, I remember Lupin's "outnumbered 20:1". And yet only 30 or so DEs showed up at the Graveyard. >> And another dozen DEs were alive in Azkaban, and some large number of DEs had already died in Azkaban. If there were actually hundreds of DEs sentenced to Azkaban and dying there, that might explain why there wasn't such a large epidemic of Squibs. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 21 04:23:41 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:23:41 -0000 Subject: the mind link / Diary!Tom / wizard divorce / Draco / the Prince's book / Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180794 Annemehr wrote in : << Well, the scene in the Atrium really looks to me that LV sensed from afar that Harry was shouting about the loss of the prophecy. But I couldn't really prove that to anyone who, like Mike, thought that LV was actually hiding in the Atrium at the time and simply heard Harry's voice. (snip) Also, you'd have to believe that LV would deploy Kreacher and the DEs according to the plan, without being able to sense that Harry had receive the "Sirius under torture" message. But clearing the Ministry of guards and putting the DEs in place seems awful risky if you don't even know if your bait is set in the trap.>> Well, we could both be right. LV maybe never knew that Harry was sharing his mind until Kreachy told him, but then LV figured out some way to monitor Harry's mind, or to observe Harry from a distance, thus hearing him speak to his friends of seeing the trick vision and hearing him shout to Bellatrix. [*waves to Steve bboyminn* for ] RL wrote in : << [Diary!Tom] seems to know things that he hadn't learned in his first 16 years--how could he know, for example, that Harry WAS an orphan without knowing WHY Harry was an orphan? >> Didn't Diary!Tom learned everything he knew about Harry from Ginny writing in the diary? Diary!Tom wanted to destroy Harry for being a danger to Diary!Tom's future self as Lord Voldemort because Ginny had explained why Harry is 'the boy who lived' and (per that bad Valentine) 'the hero who conquered the Dark Lord'. A_svirn wrote in : << If they divorced before the child was born it wouldn't be his officially. >> Does wizarding law even have divorce? Do we know anything about what wizarding law says about official paternity, or about official motherhood for that matter? Potioncat wrote in : << Would things have gone any differently if Draco had quickly agreed [to DD's offer to hide him and his mother]? >> Snape would have made it happen. I have faith in Snape's abilities. If he'd accepted quickly enough, they could have all been off the Tower before the DEs got there. Maybe even in time to save DD's life from the green potion??? Potioncat wrote in : << Interesting isn't it, that these two Gryffindor boys liked this Slytherin?--or what they knew of him. They didn't find the magic to be "dark" or horrible. >> Except when Harry tried the Sectumsempra curse. And if he had tried every spell in the book, how many others would have horrified him? The Prince's book is no proof that young Sevvie was not interested in Dark Magic. << It reminds me again of the excuse given that James didn't like Severus because Severus was into Dark Magic. >> Also, Harry didn't find anything in the Prince's book about wanting to join the Death Eaters when he left school, and apparently young Sevvie really was planning on that -- in one of his post mortem memories, Lily denounced him and his friends for planning to be Death Eaters and said like something like "see, you're not even trying to deny it". That doesn't do much good for excuses I used to make for Sevvie joining the Death Eaters, that he had done it in a rage at James and Dumbledore, or been seduced into it, and either way, then it was done and could not be undone. Yeah, he still could have been seduced into it, but he had long enough to think it over and change his mind before it happened. << The real issue was that James disliked Severus because of a Slytherin bias. >> Or because of the sneer on his face and in his voice. Yes, at that first meeting, James insulted Slytherin before Severus sneered at him, but Severus's response was to sneer that Gryffindor is for brawns without brains, and I'm sure that wasn't the last time. Or because of his shabby clothes. Could his Hogwarts robes have been as out of date as his Muggle clothes and Ron's dress robes? From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 04:42:50 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:42:50 -0000 Subject: House elves (WAS: realistic solutions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180795 Mike: Some of this conversation is getting silly, fun but still silly. I believe I'll drop the merpeople=fish part analogy. When we start talking about what can or can't live under water, the analogy has lost all value. Let me concede right here that slave is a perfectly valid definition of the elvish position. I also agree that as English speaking humans, the characters would correctly refer to elves as slaves. Doesn't Hermione call it slave labor in GoF? Harry is introduced to the term because he met Dobby first, and I'm sure it's Ron's interpretation as well. Curious that none of the adults use the term, not even Dumbledore, but that is of no matter. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180767 a_svirn: Not determine, or judge, Alla, describe! We are talking about description. I describe wizards in terms of my own culture, and in terms of my culture they are slaves-owners Mike: If we were only talking about a definition, I would end this post right here. But we're not. When I say that I don't think of elves as slaves it's me putting them in the context of the story. As a definition, slave works fine. But as a conceptual pigeon-hole to put them in, it skews the understanding of the situation. They are not human slaves, yet if you define them in terms of your own culture, what do you have to equate them to other than human slaves? Ron and the twins were excoriated in this forum for saying that the elves like it. After all, that excuse was used for ages to justify human slavery. Then it turns out that elves *do* like it, in fact it appears they won't survive without it. That means to me that the simple term of slavery does not fully explain or completely identify house elves within their context inside the WW. So what do the wizards do about it? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180773 Magpie: We're not talking about what values they have, we're talking about how they understand the relationship between house elf and master. Mike: But how can we evaluate that relationship without taking the character's values into consideration? Yes, they own elves in a master-slave relationship. Should that be the extent of it, should we say slavery is bad, full stop? Or should we allow that there is more in play here, that this isn't the same as in our world with humans put in bondage against their wills and their human nature? If we're talking about the morality of the situation, I think it's incumbent upon the wizards to decide what's appropriate for all the players. They must look at the ramifications of their choices on the elves as well as themselves. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180739 a_svirn: If I think that slavery is abominable, I will not keep a slave only because it's a done thing and they like it just fine. If I had a slave, it would be because I would suit me just fine. Suit *me*, not my slave. And I find it revolting that owning slaves is something wizards happily do. Mike: So, for you it's all about slavery, full stop. As I said before, if that's your position, that's a valid reading of canon. For me, that's an incomplete reading of canon. I think in the context, wizards have two choices that must be weighed for their morality; they can refuse to be slave owners (your position), or they can accept that elves need to serve wizard masters (my position). My reading of canon is that wizards must consider what is best for the elves. And what's best for elves is to let them serve wizards under the best possible conditions. As Harry discovered, elf freedom is antithetical to their base constitution. As long as the WW moves to remove the self-punishment enchantment, as Hermione seems to be advocating even if she never said that in so many words, that would result in the best possible situation for the elves. That it will also benefit the wizards that own the elves, I don't deny. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180739 a_svirn: So what? I wasn't discussing elvish point of view. Mike: But how is that fair for the wizards or the elves? You seem to be advocating the wizards make the decision in a vacuum. To hell with what the elves want, wizards shouldn't own slaves. Period. So would you care what happens to the elves if wizards made it law that elves cannot be slaves? Are you taking Hermione's GoF position that elves must be free, or that they must be paid and have days off? That, imo, would be forcing elves to accept human values, or worse, force a traumatic change that elves can't live with. And if that were the case, how would that be the more moralistic position? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180763 a_svirn: I don't like the ways of that particular world. Mike: I'm seeing that. I'm trying to analyze what is appropriate for the context and not to simply impose real world values. The way I read the house elves, the best for all concerned was to allow them to be their slavish servant selves, and for wizards to accept that cultural condition. I think the "wizards should not own slaves" position would be self- centered and self-congratulatory, and that it ignores the consequences of that stance. If Harry were to give Kreacher clothes, imo that would be Harry saying, "Look at me, I'm a good person. Just ignore that destitute elf I've kicked to the curb." Mike From aceworker at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 05:34:08 2008 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:34:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hogwarts Classes Message-ID: <615399.2991.qm@web30208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180796 Clipped from DS <> To me most of the classes that are taught are very broad classes. In other words the Transfiguration class is the equivalant of English 101. And magic seems to be able to be broadly categorized into a few broad types, just like in the muggle world 'real learning' can be categorized int certain broad categories of knowledge. English, Math, Science, History, Arts, a few others. Perhaps magic can be as broadly defined. Also you need to remember the purpose of the school which is similar to the purpose of real schools to provide the basic knowledge needed by the average witch or wizard to survive everyday life in the muggle world. They don't need the advanced stuff most of them. There are plenty of spells they learn that are just as useful to the average wizard as calculus is the to the average muggle. Or the sonnets of Shakespeare. Really the number of spells they need are very little. Apparation, basic summoning charms, perhaps simple transfiguration to hide themselves from muggles mostly, or to prepare food. Charms, to change their appearance, simple wards to keep away danger etc. Most of what they really need they probably know by fourth year. DA Jones . Snipped for DS: <> As in many muggle societies perhaps magic schools teach little about ethics. That is expected to be taught by the parents; also what little ethics there are are probably usually taught in History of Magic and one reason the Slytherins are so ethically challenged is like everyone else they never pay attention to Binns. We do know that a few 'ethical things' are taught in the other classes. For instance in Transfiguration they are taught that human transfiguration is prohibited. DA Snipped from DS: <> One reason for this, is that about half of wizarding society is very reluctant to teach muggle-born at all. Also, I'm sure most of this is in the Miranda Goshawks worls. But also remember they don't want the muggle borns doing magic at home, at least until 17. I think they would pick up most of these very quickly from their friends anyway. There doesn't seem to be much need for household spells. As most witches and wizards eventually acquire house-elves to do all that for them anyway. Even the muggle-borns I suspect. I also suspect that many muggle-borns end up marrying muggles and don't end up with much use for magic after school anyway. At least some probably rarely travel into the world once learning their basic craft in Hogwarts. Maybe they keep an owl and prophet subscription and that's about it. Snipped from DS: << It also seems strange to me that the school is so understaffed. The teachers barely have enough time in the day to teach, let alone grade. There certainly can't be any form of supervision.>> Others have noted it as well. It all depends on the school size. If they're are thousands of students yes, but most erstimates place the population at between 600-800 in good years, but Harry's year seems a little smaller then the average year (perhaps do to the war. Normally you'd expect about 100 students per year, didivied into four houses times seven years (and the seventh year is optional so the classes are much smaller.) So you have seven years time four house or 28 classes to teach normally. Divide that by 5 days and you end up with slighly less then five and half classes classes a day. If each class is an hour and twenty munites or so you still have an hour for lunch and another half hour or so for the professor to still have time for themselves. The class size would be 20-25 per class, but in Harry's year the houses are perhaps smaller so they seem to be combining houses in order to make up classes. But there is no canon evidence one way or the other. Is it normal in others years to combine houses or were classes taught stickly by house? Also there are other staff besides the teachers. A librarian, a caretaker, a nurse (normally a groundskeeper or keeper of the keys (can we assume Hagrid was at least offically replaced in his old job by an unnamed character?). Plus hundered of house-elves and ghosts to help keep an eye on things. People always forget the house-elves when counting staff. I'm sure they would inform a teacher of staff member of any truly horrendous thing that is happening. The teachers also have thw whole weekend to grade exams, since they don't teach and live at the castle. If there are about thirty staff (I think we can safely assume about twice the amount of staff mentioned in the books) and six hundered students, the teachers are outnumbered by about the same ratio as when they teach class, which I don't think is odd at all. DA Jones ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 10:15:04 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:15:04 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180797 > Alla: > > Well, no, that's the point. I do not see how those statements are > mutually exclusive since I am not saying that elves likes being > slaves. I am saying that elves like serving the wizards even if to > us it LOOKS like slavery. > > Oh, and again just for the record since I am an interview person, I > DO think that they are supposed to be metaphor for slaves, it is > just I think that canon is less than clear on that and I am trying > to argue other side. I am not arguing it just for the sake of > arguing, I am sort of disregarding interviews for the purpose of > this argument. > > So, the elves are not slaves and the elves LIKE to serve the wizards > to me is by no means mutually exclusive. Am I being slow here? How > are they mutually exclusive? a_svirn: OK, I see. Can you explain the difference between being owned, being someone's property and being a slave, then? Because there is not a slightest question in the series from either side that they are being owned. > Alla: > But they also LIKE that arrangement as long as they are not abused. > In what society is that happening to slaves? a_svirn: For one thing it is a separate issue. To say they like being owned is to say that they like being slaves. Because being owned means being a slave. In any language known to me, at least. For another, it is by no means unheard of for a slave to like their lot, providing that they like their master. Jim from Hucklberry Finn liked being a slave of the Dowager. He even loved her (as his mistress, I mean). He only ran away because she had sold him. Uncle Tom didn't mind being a slave of the St. Clares. He minded it so little in fact, that his name is often used as a byword for servility. And how about Firs from the Cherry Orchard? He saw the emancipation of serfs as calamity. In any case, their liking of being owned does NOT change the fact that they are. Owned. And the fact that being owned means being a slave. Honestly, every one the thousand of Solomon's concubines perhaps liked to be owned by him. That doesn't change the fact that they were concubines. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 11:43:32 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:43:32 -0000 Subject: House elves (WAS: realistic solutions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180799 Re: House elves (WAS: realistic solutions) > Mike: > If we were only talking about a definition, I would end this post > right here. But we're not. When I say that I don't think of elves as > slaves it's me putting them in the context of the story. As a > definition, slave works fine. But as a conceptual pigeon-hole to put > them in, it skews the understanding of the situation. They are not > human slaves, yet if you define them in terms of your own culture, > what do you have to equate them to other than human slaves? a_svirn: I don't see why I should equate them to anything. What do you equate wizards to? There is no such thing in real life either. What do you equate bankers who have different notions of property and ownership than humans to? Montavilla47 suggested writers and artists. But you don't entrust artist and writers your money, do you? It is hard to pidgin-hole goblin banking practices, but we do not dispute the fact that they are bankers. House-elves' slavery might be a weird thing to account for, but it is still slavery. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180773 > Magpie: > We're not talking about what values they have, we're talking about > how they understand the relationship between house elf and master. > > Mike: > But how can we evaluate that relationship without taking the > character's values into consideration? Yes, they own elves in a > master-slave relationship. Should that be the extent of it, should we > say slavery is bad, full stop? a_svirn: Well, it is. > Mike: Or should we allow that there is more > in play here, that this isn't the same as in our world with humans > put in bondage against their wills and their human nature?# a_svirn: Dobby and Kreacher were owned against their wills too. You'll say Kreacher changed his opinion of Harry? So what? Does it make it OK for Harry to own anyone against their will? I don't think so. It is the same argument as with Lupin ? it doesn't matter that he became reconciled with Tonks and even happy about his fatherhood. Harry still had no business to call him names. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180739 > a_svirn: > If I think that slavery is abominable, I will not keep a slave only > because it's a done thing and they like it just fine. > If I had a slave, it would be because I would suit me just fine. > Suit *me*, not my slave. And I find it revolting that owning slaves > is something wizards happily do. > > Mike: > So, for you it's all about slavery, full stop. As I said before, if > that's your position, that's a valid reading of canon. For me, that's > an incomplete reading of canon. I think in the context, wizards have > two choices that must be weighed for their morality; they can refuse > to be slave owners (your position), or they can accept that elves > need to serve wizard masters (my position). > > My reading of canon is that wizards must consider what is best for > the elves. a_svirn: Where exactly in canon do we read any such thing? Unless you mean the infamous self-punishment? No one seems to be concerned about it, except Hermione, least of all elves themselves. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180739 > a_svirn: > So what? I wasn't discussing elvish point of view. > > Mike: > But how is that fair for the wizards or the elves? You seem to be > advocating the wizards make the decision in a vacuum. To hell with > what the elves want, wizards shouldn't own slaves. Period. a_svirn: Well, they shouldn't. But that's not exactly what I was saying. I was saying that to use elves' inclination to serve as a justification for slavery is not altogether genuine. Because wizards only take magical creatures' inclinations into account because and when it suits them (wizards, that is). When it doesn't like with Kreacher in OotP and HBP they don't. Why should they listen to slaves? I would also like to point out that the need to serve does not necessarily translate into the need of being someone's property. Instinct to serve may be a part of their nature, but tea towels, pillow-cases, clothes etc. are parts of human culture. Wearing a pillow-case isn't natural anymore, than wearing military uniform is natural. Office of House-Elf Relocation is a wizarding organization, not elvish. And the slavery in itself is a wizarding institution. In other words, the trappings of the whole thing are wizarding, not elvish. Wizards are the ones who determine their status as slaves, not elves themselves. > Mike: > That, imo, would be forcing elves to accept human values, or worse, > force a traumatic change that elves can't live with. And if that were > the case, how would that be the more moralistic position? a_svirn: And wizards have no problems with forcing magical creatures to accept human values when it suits them. Not being allowed wands, being some particular wizard's property is not something that originated from elves' values, you know. > Mike:> > I think the "wizards should not own slaves" position would be self- > centered and self-congratulatory, and that it ignores the > consequences of that stance. If Harry were to give Kreacher clothes, > imo that would be Harry saying, "Look at me, I'm a good person. Just > ignore that destitute elf I've kicked to the curb." a_svirn: Should we ignore a poor elf, which I bend to my will for no better reason that I can? No, that's not true, I have a better reason. I am a good person and I use my elf for the Greater Good, never mind that every one of my orders is repugnant to him and causes deep distress. I know that I am right. Because I am one of the good guys. From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Jan 21 07:22:37 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:22:37 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180800 RL: > Two questions to Susan: > > 1. Do you have specific textural support for the statement "The > definition of half blood as defined by JKR is that if you have ONE > grandparent who is NOT a witch or wizard then you are > a > half-blood." Is there something in the novel that talks of > grandparents in the definition, or are you quoting JKR's public > commentary? Some time when I was not posting to this list the definition of canon changed. My position is that if JKR says it (in an interview or wherever) is that it's canon. I am in the minority. I am quoting JKR's comments not published in Books 1 - 7. But, I will suggest that the comment by Tom Riddle about them "both being half bloods" is a statement that supports JKR's canon comments outside the book. RL: > or > > 2. Is your support of this claim Tom Riddle's very statement, as > quoted. The Riddle statement is interesting, in that he is seeing > "strange likenesses" between himself and Harry that are not > exactly incidental to his own actions: Both orphans, because Riddle > himself killed Harry's parents. Both raised by Muggles, because > Riddle killed Harry's magical parents. (It would be like taking > someone, forcibly commit plastic surgery on him so he looks like > you, and then commenting on the "strange likeness" between the two > of you. Strange.) So the only specific likeness mentioned by Riddle > that he himself did not cause is the very issue under contention: > whether Harry is, like Voldemort, a half-blood, even though > Voldemort had a muggle parent and Harry didn't. > > Now, it may be the case that (one can argue) the Riddle in the > diary didn't know these strange likenesses were caused by him > because they were done by his later self (though he seems to > know things that he hadn't learned in his first 16 years--how could > he know, for example, that Harry WAS an orphan without knowing WHY > Harry was an orphan?). And the CoS passage certainly makes the > point, stressed later in the books, that Voldemort himself marked > Harry as the one like him, capable of defeating him. I think Ginny told him a lot about Harry. That's implied in CoS. He would have been eager to hear more about Harry when he finds out that Harry is responsible for defeating his future self (LV). I think oppressor/dictator philosophy is often contradictory in our universe, and I think that this is mirrored in the HP universe. They lie. They lie big time. And of course they often talk about being pure blood or Aryan when some of their leaders are nothing of the sort. Their only real ideology is that of power over and domination, as opposed to love and compassion. Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 15:00:44 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:00:44 -0000 Subject: House elves (WAS: realistic solutions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180801 > > Alla: > > But they also LIKE that arrangement as long as they are not abused. > > In what society is that happening to slaves? > > a_svirn: > For one thing it is a separate issue. To say they like being owned is > to say that they like being slaves. Because being owned means being a > slave. In any language known to me, at least. Alla: I know I can be unclear but I cannot believe that I am that unclear. Please refer to Mike's excellent recent post to see my POV pretty much. (I mean refer not as reread, I see that you replied to him, but just to say that it is reflects what I think in much clearer language). I thought he described it very well, but for one more time I am going to be a parrot. YES. I Agree. They ARE owned. And moreover I AGREE in *our language and culture* they can be called slaves. That's the extent of my agreement though. As long as them liking to serve the wizards does not come into play. And here we go again. Let me ask you - who determined that this is a separate issue? Canon? Because canon in my opinion does no such thing, so if you could provide some examples I would appreciate it. We hear from Ron and Twins too as Mike mentioned that elves like being served in response to Hermione's. And if you determine that this is a separate issue, I do not accept it at all, without canon that is. To me it is determinative and crucial issue to make a determination that something different from slavery going on. Something that looks like one to us, but with addition of this issue transforms into something different. a_svirn: For another, it is by > no means unheard of for a slave to like their lot, providing that > they like their master. Jim from Hucklberry Finn liked being a slave > of the Dowager. He even loved her (as his mistress, I mean). He only > ran away because she had sold him. Uncle Tom didn't mind being a > slave of the St. Clares. He minded it so little in fact, that his > name is often used as a byword for servility. And how about Firs from > the Cherry Orchard? He saw the emancipation of serfs as calamity. Alla: Yeah, I know those examples, what I do not see in any of those examples that any of those peoples had the need of their nature to serve. I was waiting till someone brings up Uncle Tom LOL. They liked it because they did not know better, because they were traumatized and did not know how to be free. Elves like it even when they ARE knowing better (have master who offers to pay them, to free them, etc a_svirn: > In any case, their liking of being owned does NOT change the fact > that they are. Owned. And the fact that being owned means being a > slave. Honestly, every one the thousand of Solomon's concubines > perhaps liked to be owned by him. That doesn't change the fact that > they were concubines. Alla: And who is arguing with this again as long as you are adding the words "in our culture"? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180739 > a_svirn: > So what? I wasn't discussing elvish point of view. > > Mike: > But how is that fair for the wizards or the elves? You seem to be > advocating the wizards make the decision in a vacuum. To hell with > what the elves want, wizards shouldn't own slaves. Period. a_svirn: Well, they shouldn't. But that's not exactly what I was saying. I was saying that to use elves' inclination to serve as a justification for slavery is not altogether genuine. Because wizards only take magical creatures' inclinations into account because and when it suits them (wizards, that is). When it doesn't like with Kreacher in OotP and HBP they don't. Why should they listen to slaves Alla: AHA. So let me ask you. How do you know that wizards take elves' inclination to serve only when it suits them. Neither Mike no I deny that it suits wizards as well obviously. But I see no indication that wizards are not truly concerned about providing what is best for the elves either. Good guys that is. Dumbledore tries to improve Hogwarts elves situation and offers freedom, etc. And then he does what they truly want, doesn't he? What IS your solution? You think wizards should free them, whether they want it or not? And if possible, please answer without saying that this is a separate issue, otherwise we cannot go anywhere. To me it is not and I really really want to know what do you suggest they should do if it is to you human slavery, full stop. Should they do what Russian tsar did and make a law that all elves are free ? Suggestions? > Mike:> > I think the "wizards should not own slaves" position would be self- > centered and self-congratulatory, and that it ignores the > consequences of that stance. If Harry were to give Kreacher clothes, > imo that would be Harry saying, "Look at me, I'm a good person. Just > ignore that destitute elf I've kicked to the curb." a_svirn: Should we ignore a poor elf, which I bend to my will for no better reason that I can? No, that's not true, I have a better reason. I am a good person and I use my elf for the Greater Good, never mind that every one of my orders is repugnant to him and causes deep distress. I know that I am right. Because I am one of the good guys. Alla: I would love to know the actual answer to Mike's question, because to me the answer to you is very simple. Of course we should not ignore him and should not behave to poor treacherous bastard as we did. ( Disclaimer ? my answer is truthful and the only reason why I am calling Kreacher poor treacherous bastard is because I hate him as a character, not as elf). And we do not do that anymore as far as I remember. But should we FREE him? Should we FREE Kreacher? I mean, wizards should not listen to elves liking being served, right? They should stop being repugnant slave owners and kick those elves out. Let's force them to pick clothes for example. Oh wait, we already did that. Never mind we will come up with something else. It is so easy to vindicate wizards, I think, but if we do not ignore the fact that elves indeed LIKE to serve, it gets a little bit harder. To me anyways. JMO, Alla From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 21 15:50:14 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:50:14 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180802 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "magnolia11875" wrote: > > Hello everyone > > I've lurked for a while, but I just felt like posting this. I'm sure > this is a topic that's been covered quite extensively over time on > this group, but it's a little hard to search for topics (for me at > least), and anyway, it's interesting to start your own and see where > it goes. Especially since it's unlikely that if I did respond to a > much earlier post that many people would notice it. > > It seems to me that the Hogwarts classes are a little lacking. You > have the core classes and then the very few electives, i.e. Ancient > Runes, Arithmancy, Care of Magical Creatures, Divination and Muggle > Studies. And yet the magical world is so rich with different types of > magic and applications of magic and you can see the basics of the > advanced forms in the other classes, but it just seems strange to me > that other classes aren't offered. Geoff: I think that my reply may parallel what has been written by others. In the UK school system, Options do not come into play until Years 10 and 11 (what until fairly recently would have been Fourth Year and Fifth Year). Core subjects such as, for example, Maths, English, and Science obviously continue into these years. In a real life situation, if I ask one of the young people at church what they are doing for Options, they will usually list two or three - the ones they particularly want to take - and then, if pressed, the remaining choices, possibly those which are makeweights to reach the required number for their GCSE exams at the end of Year 11. In the Hogwarts situation, I think we are seeing the subjects which we are first intended to recognise as most valuable and then those which are the particular choices of our principal characters. Looking back at my own experience as a form tutor, I find it difficult to see the subjects and their likely time allocation making up the required timetable and feel that, perhaps repeating myself, JKR has really focussed on subjects which will be seen to increase the students' breadth of knowledge and experience. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jan 21 16:41:46 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:41:46 -0000 Subject: House elves (WAS: realistic solutions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180803 > Mike: > But how can we evaluate that relationship without taking the > character's values into consideration? Yes, they own elves in a > master-slave relationship. Should that be the extent of it, should we > say slavery is bad, full stop? Or should we allow that there is more > in play here, that this isn't the same as in our world with humans > put in bondage against their wills and their human nature? > > If we're talking about the morality of the situation, I think it's > incumbent upon the wizards to decide what's appropriate for all the > players. They must look at the ramifications of their choices on the > elves as well as themselves. Magpie: I don't think it's ever the extent of it--I mean, even with human slavery there's plenty more to say. We don't have to ignore the harsh reality of what happens if an elf is given clothes. But as a_svirn said better than I am, Wizards make decisions on what's good for Wizards and house elf slavery is good for them. If it weren't it woudln't be an institution any more than the Gobln notion of property is. They have no trouble at all imposing their own views of right and wrong on other cultures or other people when the views of those other cultures run counter to their own. They don't care what happens to werewolves who can't support themselves thanks to anti-werewolf legislation, for instance. Wizards reap the benefits of their relationship to House Elves. It's not like they're extending charity to them by owning them. And it's not just the service they provide that's a benefit, it's their slavery. Kreacher is kept a slave not because his views are respected but because it's safer for the Order. Harry gives Kreacher orders in HBP (orders Kreacher doesn't want to follow) not because he feels sorry for Kreacher but because he wants the order fulfilled. So yeah, the book poses the question of whether it's bad to own another person and have them serve you even if it makes them happy. A slave who's going to fall down weeping if he's freed is a different person than the slave who's going to run away the first chance he gets. But looking at it this way, for instance, just seems a little self-serving for Wizards: Mike: I think in the context, wizards have > two choices that must be weighed for their morality; they can refuse > to be slave owners (your position), or they can accept that elves > need to serve wizard masters (my position). Magpie: Because it's imo disingenuously pretending the Wizards aren't reaping all the benefits. It makes them passive--they're just accepting that elves need to serve Wizards rather than enjoying the benefits of having slaves and imposing their will on House Elves whether that particular slave wants to serve a particular Wizard or not. We don't have much evidence that Wizards are much struggling with the latter choice. Elves' need to serve Wizards comes up most often as a reason not to think about dismantling the slave trade that nobody's really bothered by anyway. Sure Harry doesn't want to free Kreacher as a demonstration of being a 'good guy' knowing that Kreacher would take it as a catastrophe. But Harry and Kreacher's relationship still has never been governed by anything but Harry's--and not Kreacher's-- desires. Wizards always first question what's best for Wizards. Elves' feelings about ownership might imo give the illusion that Wizards are acting on Elves' behalf, but the Elves' desires support their own wishes (when they don't Wizards overrule them) in ways the wishes of Werewolves, Goblins and Giants don't. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 16:53:32 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:53:32 -0000 Subject: Explain This Passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180804 > RL: > > 1. Do you have specific textural support for the statement "The > > definition of half blood as defined by JKR is that if you have ONE > > grandparent who is NOT a witch or wizard then you are > a > > half-blood." Is there something in the novel that talks of > > grandparents in the definition, or are you quoting JKR's public > > commentary? > Susan McGee: > Some time when I was not posting to this list the definition of canon > changed. My position is that if JKR says it (in an interview or > wherever) is that it's canon. I am in the minority. I am quoting > JKR's comments not published in Books 1 - 7. zgirnius: Interview canon is canon, in the sense that is allowed to discuss these comments on this list (unlike, say, the movies, or fanfiction), as I understand it. But the rules do not insist that individual members, in their posts, must treat these statements as somehow of equal weight or validity to what is written in the books and their understanding of it. Among other excellent reasons individual members may have to dismiss interviews as 'less', they are mutually contradictory. Snape in love is a horrible idea, quoth our authoress. She also likes Snape (even if she does want to slap him), because he possesses the two traits she most admires in a person - courage and the ability to love deeply. They can also contradict what is in the books. Grindelwald was alive as of the start of DH, the death of a Secret Keeper does not preserve the secret in the condition it was in when he died as suggested on the website, it makes everyone who knows itsD a Secret Keeper, for two examples. > Susan: > But, I will suggest that the comment by Tom Riddle about them "both > being half bloods" is a statement that supports JKR's canon comments > outside the book. zgirnius: I completely agree. Dumbledore also implies Harry is a half-blood, in his discussion of the prophecy in OotP. Furthermore, the definition some list members seem to be assuming (two parents, one pureblood, one Muggle) is not in the books either. The term half-blood is not defined at all, we simply have a list of characters so identified, from whose genealogy we may endeavor to deduce a definition: Snape: Mother's blood status unknown (witch, I would guess pureblood), Father Muggle Riddle: Mother pureblood, Father Muggle Harry: Mother Muggleborn, Father pureblood My own guess is that half-blood is quite possibly used by people in the Potterverse who really care about these designations to denote any wizard known to have both pureblood and Muggle ancestry, in whatever degree. After all, we have no other word for such people in canon (interview OR books). So Harry's kids, e.g., might still be considered half-blood, with two Muggle great-grandparents (the Evanses), and six pureblood ones (the Potters, the Weasleys, and the Prewitts). People who care, would probably find them more 'acceptable' than, say, a Snape, whose mother had the poor taste to marry a Muggle - at least Harry's kids will not be tainted by acquaintance with the odd ideas of their straying blood-traitor grandfather, James Potter, and their "Muggle" grandmother Lily, whereas Snape was actually raised by a Muggle and his witch wife in a "Muggle dunghill". But I don't know that there is a different term for describing them, as they are not purebloods. From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Mon Jan 21 16:52:41 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:52:41 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hallows and killing off my favourite Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180805 Hello. I am new here and wish to say that I love The Deathly Hallows. I think it is the best book. I have one issue with it. That is that my favorite character in the series is killed off at the end. That is Remus Lupin. I think he is a clever Wizard, loyal to Dumbledore and Harry, even tempered all though he is a werewolf. He does make some mistakes though which makes me care about him more. Jayne Rainy England From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 17:31:18 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:31:18 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180806 Magpie wrote: > Kreacher, however, is happy with Harry--he has "chosen" his master. Carol responds: Exactly. and many House-Elves, for example, those at Hogwarts, appear to be happy without having chosen their masters. Just how freed Elves would choose their masters is beyond me. Are they supposed to wander the WW until they find a family that they like, meantime living without work or shelter and somehow grubbing for food? I'm pretty sure that the House-Elves of Hogwarts would remain where they were if they were freed and continue to work without wages (or health insurance since they have magic)--unless "freed" meant looking for a job elsewhere, which would be a hardship. What added benefit would freedom bring? They don't need or want money. Only Dobby wants to buy socks and an occasional hat. If they were freed, they'd have clothes rather than tea towels (marking them in the eyes of other House-Elves as fired and disgraced). Freedom would just make them dependent on money, like us. Magpie: > The fact that they can't be unhappy without punishing themselves is unpleasant but as far as we know there's nothing Master Harry can do about it. Carol: Except order Kreacher not to punish himself, which, I agree is ineffectual. But we know that Hermione is concerned about this particular problem and has stated that she wants to do something good for the world (her words to Scrimgeour in "The Will of Albus Dumbledore" badly paraphrased from memory), so it's at least in character for Little Miss SPEW to try to find a solution to this problem once she is out of school and working for the Ministry. (I know that last part is from an interview, but it's pretty obvious that she's heading in that direction from canon.( Magpie: And I don't see how all this leads up to "until they are free" they are a danger to the society since it just runs you right into the same problem as before, which is that they don't want to be free. Carol: I don't know about "danger to society," but having a bunch of homeless, jobless House-Elves running around would be a social problem of some sort. Unscrupulous wizards might kidnap them or they might starve, and they would certainly be unhappy. There's a reason why they don't want to be freed, and it goes beyond the disgrace of having failed their masters. What does a House-Elf do? Can he make wands? No. Can he make swords and armor? No. Can he teach school? Not unless it's a House-Elf school of domestic servitude, and they seem to have those skills already. Can they make potions? Probably not, if you need a wand. Let them do what they're good at and want to do--take care of wizards and wizard families. Suppose that Harry "freed" Kreacher after Kreacher has transferred his loyalty to him (still reserving his love and hero worship for the dead Regulus, to judge from his locket and rallying cry). How would that benefit Kreacher? Home, to him, is 12 GP. Harry could order him to stay at Hogwarts, where he could choose to work or not, but if he didn't work, he'd be an outcast and not earning his keep. He can't say, stay at Hogwarts and be paid because it would be the headmaster's decision, not Harry's, whether to pay him. And he can't just give Kreacher to the headmaster, which would not be freeing Kreacher at all, just switching masters. Nor does Kreacher want Harry to pay him. If he just sets him free (fires him), he'll break old Kreacher's heart. "Here, Kreacher. Now don't take this wrong, but I'm giving you clothes so you can be free." "Master, no! Not clotes, pleas, master." "It's okay, Kreacher. I'm not punishing you or letting you go. You haven't done anything wrong. I'm rewarding you for your bravery and good service." "Master, no, please. This is Kreacher's home. . . ." "You don't have to leave. And you won't have to obey me. You can wear clothes, like Dobby--" "Kreacher doesn't want to be like Dobby!" "Okay. Well, you can choose your own clothes and I'll pay you for your work. And if you don't like working for me, you can find another master--" "Kreacher doesn't want another master. This is Kreacher's home. Kreacher doesn't want clothes. Would master like a nice treacle tart?" "Okay, Kreacher. You win. I won't free you." "Thank you, master. Thank you. Dinner is ready, but master must wash his hands and comb his hair." "Okay, Kreacher. And I'll want some butterbeer to go with the treacle tart." "Of course, master. Kreacher lives to serve." House-Elves are not people, as Hermione makes clear when she explains their psychology to Harry. Magpie: Harry and Kreacher have solved all these problems in their relationship--Kreacher is happy with his master and so is not unhappy and may never have to punish himself again. So what's the problem? Carol: Exactly. The only problem is in the minds of readers who insist on a parallel between the natural desire of House-Elves to serve wizards and human slavery, which involves one human being forcing his will on another. As long as House-Elves want to serve Wizards without pay because they like work, especially housework, and as long as their treated well, the only problem is the enchantment that makes them punish themselves. Harry can work to be sure that his own House-Elf never suffers from it, and Hermione, the House-Elf crusader, can research a more lasting solution. But as long as there are House-Elves, they will work for Wizards because that's what they want to do. The humane thing for Wizards to do is to respect that desire and let them continue to be what they want to be. Magpie: > Harry would no doubt let Kreacher free if he wanted to be free. But since he's really better off as a slave given his psychology Harry will make the best of it and be waited on. Carol: Ex-act-ly. So where's the problem? Harry sees none. Kreacher sees none. Hermione see none except the self-punishment enchantment. The problem exists only if we bring in interviews that contradict the canon or impose our own enlightened human values on House-Elves. (I say "enlightened" because not all human cultures value freedom and a few still practice slavery. Even members of certain African tribes used to sell members of other tribes into slavery. We should not assume that our values are universal or "human" when they're the result of our education and training. The Hogwarts curriculum, as we know, includes no indoctrination in natural or civil rights (unless, perhaps, Charity Burbage put in a word for the acceptance of Muggles as people, in which case she was probably preaching to the choir). House-Elves don't want freedom, which, for them, is "just another word for nothin' left to lose." Carol, now imagining House-Elves wandering the WW with "harpoons" (harmonicas) wrapped in dirty old bandanas From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 17:52:40 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:52:40 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180807 Magpie: > Ultimately Hermione's switches away from house elf freedom to good > treatment for owned house elves. That to me sounds like a shift to > the view of slave-owning being legitimate. It's not dealing with the > problem of owning the slave but the self-punishment that is repulsive > to (some) Wizard owners. It's a problem with the elves that must be > fixed, if anything. If Kreacher no longer self-punished would > Hermione be perfectly happy with his being owned by Harry and > following orders for the Trio? If so, then she's not anti- > slavery/anti-house-elf-ownership because that's a separate issue. Carol responds: Will someone *please* tell me what you think would and should happen if the House-Elves were freed? In what way would conditions be better? I see unhappiness and chaos, myself. I *don't* see House-Elves attending Hogwarts, learning to use wands, and becoming miniature humans, with all our economic and political problems. What's this Utopia you envision? All I've seen is this argument: House-Elves are slaves. Slavery is bad. Therefore, House-Elves should be freed. If they were human, I would agree, even though Emancipation of the American slaves created as many problems as it solved, with many newly freed former slaves forced to move to the North and find low-paying jobs or live in poverty. (Freedom in itself isn't worth much, which is why economic reform must precede political reform in developing countries. Freedom without food, shelter, and money equals living on the street in poverty and misery.) So, please. Describe this ideal solution to the "problem" of House-Elf "slavery" in our imaginary WW. Carol, who thinks that the status quo is vastly preferable to mobs of unemployed House-Elves begging the wizards in the streets for a few Knuts to buy food (actually, they'd beg to be taken in and work for free, if I know House-elves) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 17:57:13 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:57:13 -0000 Subject: House elves (WAS: realistic solutions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180808 Mike: I think in the context, wizards have > two choices that must be weighed for their morality; they can refuse > to be slave owners (your position), or they can accept that elves > need to serve wizard masters (my position). Magpie: Because it's imo disingenuously pretending the Wizards aren't reaping all the benefits. Alla: It is IMO just as disingenuous to pretend that wizards ARE reaping all the benefits. They have benefits and they provide the benefits to elves and yes the benefit is to fulfil their need to serve the wizards. I mean, what if I am going to say that whether wizards are reaping the benefits at all is the separate issue. I can't. Wizards benefitting and elves benefitting go together IMO. Magpie: It makes them passive--they're just accepting that elves need to serve Wizards rather than enjoying the benefits of having slaves and imposing their will on House Elves whether that particular slave wants to serve a particular Wizard or not. We don't have much evidence that Wizards are much struggling with the latter choice. Alla: Of course they are enjoying the benefits and showing that wizards must respect elf's needs is the goal, is it not? Magpie: Elves' need to serve Wizards comes up most often as a reason not to think about dismantling the slave trade that nobody's really bothered by anyway. Alla: But but that IS the major reason, how can it be discounted? From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 21 18:38:13 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:38:13 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180809 > Magpie: > > > Only if the book actually suggests the problem exists. In HP it > > > certainly shows that there's a problem if you're a bad Wizard > like Lucius, but no I don't see any indication that there's any > problem with Dumbledore or Harry or Hermione owning a slave. > > (I don't even remember Slughorn using House Elves as > poison testers to be honest. I don't doubt it happened, but I > definitely don't recall it as something that seemed to be there to > dramatize that Dumbledore owning House Elves was bad-- Dumbledore who has offered their freedom and they refused it.) Pippin: HBP ch 22: Slughorn uncorked one of the bottles of wine he had brought. "I have had it *all* tested for posion," he assured Harry, pouring most of the first bottle into one of Hagrid's bucket-sized mugs and handing it to Hagrid. "Had a house-elf taste every bottle after what happened to your poor friend Rupert." Harry saw, in his mind's eye, the expression on Hermione's face if she ever heard about this abuse of house-elves, and decided never to mention it to her. ---- Harry explicitly recognizes that this is abuse and the text invites us to imagine Hermione's reaction to it. We are not being encouraged to agree with Slughorn that house-elves are disposable. But we see the limits of Harry's compassion here -- he's more concerned about Hermione's reaction than he is about a nameless, faceless house-elf. Harry is a compassionate person generally, so Rowling is saying something about the limits of human compassion, something she said in another form when Dumbledore confessed he was more concerned about preserving Harry's innocence than about the lives Harry could save. The text doesn't support the idea that the instincts of compassionate people will prevent abuse. It also shows us that the potential for abuse is built into the system. If elf abuse is a sign of owner unworthiness then we must conclude that all owners are unworthy. Not only has every named elf in the canon been abused, abuse is so casual that Slughorn doesn't even see it as a problem. Certainly he would not speak of it so blithely if he did -- he does not want Lily's son to think poorly of him. But no one's ever taught him to consider a house-elf's life equal to his own. > Magpie: > I didn't say anything about generalizing from Harry's experience. > We've already seen owners that aren't as good as Harry within canon. > That doesn't change that I don't see Harry/Kreacher dramatizing > anything bad for Harry. Pippin: It's already dramatized something bad for him: Sirius is dead. He's dead because he didn't see Kreacher's feelings as something he needed to be concerned about. If that didn't teach Harry about needing to see things from an elf's point of view, what would? Harry didn't learn it immediately, but in DH he comes to see that Dumbledore and Hermione were right and he was wrong. It seems like you want Harry to go back to where Hermione started from, refusing to eat anything that's been prepared by slave labor. It was a well-meant gesture, but nobody was impressed. I can't see that they'd be any more impressed if Harry did it. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jan 21 19:21:49 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:21:49 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180810 > Carol responds: > > Will someone *please* tell me what you think would and should happen > if the House-Elves were freed? In what way would conditions be better? > I see unhappiness and chaos, myself. I *don't* see House-Elves > attending Hogwarts, learning to use wands, and becoming miniature > humans, with all our economic and political problems. What's this > Utopia you envision? All I've seen is this argument: > > House-Elves are slaves. > Slavery is bad. > Therefore, House-Elves should be freed. Magpie: We're not, I don't think, claiming to have a practical solution. We're, describing the situation as it is. House Elves are slaves. Slavery being bad is of course an opinion. I obviously don't know enough to say exactly how to go about it. However I do reject the idea that they can't be freed period, or that Wizards can't free them because they care so much about House Elves welfare. Wizards don't make decisions based on that, they make decisions based on what's good for themselves. House elves' desires go along with theirs so they accomodate them. Goblins' don't, so they don't bother themselves about upsetting them by imposing their own views. Werewolves are just as bereft without jobs as House Elves, but Wizards pass laws against them working (even though that is potentially even more dangerous because werewolves get hungry). House Elves' needs grow or shrink depending on the Wizards needs. Harry doesn't free Kreacher because he cares about Kreacher's needs, he doesn't free him because it would be dangerous to him and his cause. He gives him orders Kreacher does not want to obey because he wants to do it. There there actually is an easy situation where the elf could choose his master--he wants to work for the bad guys. He's not allowed to do that because it would be dangerous. Kreacher's needs are sometimes described shifting slightly after his turnaround. Suddenly Harry's enjoying Kreacher's cooking is also something he needs to do for Kreacher, even though that wasn't a consideration when he didn't like Kreacher and Kreacher was a bad cook. Imo the biggest barrier to House Elf freedom isn't that it causes problems because there are unemployed House Elves (not sure exactly what kinds of problems that would cause for Wizards anyway) but that Wizards don't want it that much. That's why they back down so quickly in the face of what House Elves want on this issue where they don't back down to Goblins or Werewolves or Giants. So they haven't even tried to find an alternate solution. Who knows what would happen if House Elves were brought up with freedom? The other Elves were disgusted by Dobby's situation (still serving, but free and paid) but he's alive until he's stabbed to death. Winky feels disgraced and her disgrace leads to self-destructive behavior, but she doesn't die either. Mike: I think in the context, wizards have > two choices that must be weighed for their morality; they can refuse > to be slave owners (your position), or they can accept that elves > need to serve wizard masters (my position). Magpie: Because it's imo disingenuously pretending the Wizards aren't reaping all the benefits. Alla: It is IMO just as disingenuous to pretend that wizards ARE reaping all the benefits. They have benefits and they provide the benefits to elves and yes the benefit is to fulfil their need to serve the wizards. I mean, what if I am going to say that whether wizards are reaping the benefits at all is the separate issue. I can't. Wizards benefitting and elves benefitting go together IMO. Magpie: They're reaping most of the benefits. The only benefit they're providing is allowing themselves to be waited on, which is in itself a benefit to themselves. The system, meanwhile, makes sure that whenever there is a conflict of interests the Wizards win. When an Elf doesn't want to serve, he's still compelled to serve. The benefits to Wizards and Elves don't always go together. Magpie: Elves' need to serve Wizards comes up most often as a reason not to think about dismantling the slave trade that nobody's really bothered by anyway. Alla: But but that IS the major reason, how can it be discounted? Magpie: Because it isn't the major reason imo. Wizards allow House Elf slavery because it benefits Wizards not because they themselves are governed by what House Elves want. That's the way they deal with other races across the board, and I don't see any difference when it comes to House Elves. Pippin: HBP ch 22: Slughorn uncorked one of the bottles of wine he had brought. "I have had it *all* tested for posion," he assured Harry, pouring most of the first bottle into one of Hagrid's bucket-sized mugs and handing it to Hagrid. "Had a house-elf taste every bottle after what happened to your poor friend Rupert." Harry saw, in his mind's eye, the expression on Hermione's face if she ever heard about this abuse of house-elves, and decided never to mention it to her. ---- Harry explicitly recognizes that this is abuse and the text invites us to imagine Hermione's reaction to it. We are not being encouraged to agree with Slughorn that house-elves are disposable. Magpie: Yup, that's what I imagined it was. It's a little moment of black humor about Slughorn, very far removed from a judgment of Dumbledore's owning slaves. Pippin: But we see the limits of Harry's compassion here -- he's more concerned about Hermione's reaction than he is about a nameless, faceless house- elf. Harry is a compassionate person generally, so Rowling is saying something about the limits of human compassion, something she said in another form when Dumbledore confessed he was more concerned about preserving Harry's innocence than about the lives Harry could save. The text doesn't support the idea that the instincts of compassionate people will prevent abuse. Magpie: I don't see Harry as a particularly compassionate person at all, so I don't really see his limits as being the limits of humanity. But still, I've never argued that JKR didn't show that the system wasn't vulnerable to the non-compassionate. Though it's still a different position to say that slavery is bad because somebody might abuse it than slavery is inherently bad even if you have a great master who treats you well. That's why Harry's owning Kreacher isn't bad in itself. Pippin: It's already dramatized something bad for him: Sirius is dead. He's dead because he didn't see Kreacher's feelings as something he needed to be concerned about. If that didn't teach Harry about needing to see things from an elf's point of view, what would? Harry didn't learn it immediately, but in DH he comes to see that Dumbledore and Hermione were right and he was wrong. It seems like you want Harry to go back to where Hermione started from, refusing to eat anything that's been prepared by slave labor. Magpie: Harry can have concern for Kreacher's feelings *within* the system of slavery, which what he ends up doing and which is more along the lines we're heading with the idea of Hermione trying to pass laws about the treatment of owned House Elves. That's not abolition of slavery, it's having ideas of how a good slave owner should act--or be made to act if he won't do it himself. Though I'm curious--is there something wrong with the position that Hermione starts from in refusing to eat anything that's been prepared by slave labor? Is it just that her single person protest is not going to do any good and she's not really prepared for a hunger strike anyway, or that it's impractical since she doesn't have any other way of getting food and there's all this stuff being enthusiastically prepared in front of her? -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 19:26:55 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:26:55 -0000 Subject: House Elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180811 Carol earlier: > << still wondering what this glorious "freedom" to be imposed on the > House-Elves against their will would consist of >> > Catlady responded: > 1) Freedom from being compelled to punish themselves. In the long term, by removing the 'enchantment'. 2) Freedom from being abused. Laws must be passed AND enforced against > cruelty to House Elves. Carol again: Well, yes. But eliminating the compulsion to punish themselves, which I agree is a problem (the chief concern of Hermione in DH), isn't freedom from what a_svirn and Magpie are calling "slavery." IMO, ending the self-punishment and preventing abuse would in themselves solve the House-Elf problem, allowing House-elves to work for wizards but not be mistreated. In a_svirn's and Magpie's view, "slavery" itself is the problem. They want freedom from servitude to humans altogether, apparently. Let them set up businesses or something money-related, as a Wizard might do, apparently. I really don't know what they think the answer is other than Slavery Is Evil And Must Be Ended Now. With what in its place? that's what I want to know. > Catlady: > 2.5) House Elves taken away from egregiously abusive employers would feel the same as children taken away from egregiously abusive parents > -- that they are the ones being punished, not the masters/parents. This is a bad thing, which WSPCHE should have a rehabilitation (brainwashing and re-employment) program to help displaced House Elves with. Carol: I don't understand what you're saying here, or what WSPCHE is. > > 3) Freedom to leave an unwanted employer and seek another. Of course, it's only fair that the employer would have the right to sack an unwanted House Elf and seek another. To make sure that both House Elves and wizards know their rights and duties, a law that both must sign an employment contract. Yes, the law intrudes between House Elves and wizards who have lived together happily for decades, forcing them to sign some stupid contract. Carol responds: Are you for or against the "stupid contract"? Are you advocating more bureaucracy (just what the WWW needs!) or ridiculing the idea? > Catlady: > 3.5) Can we rely on the free market to spontaneously generate a House Elf employment agency? An 'Elves Seeking Houses' section of classified ads in Witch Weekly? A particular bulletin board in Hogsmead where wizards post House Elf Wanted notices? Carol responds: Not unless you want to make House-Elves as dependent on money as humans, essentially turning them into us. > Catlady: > 4) At first, most House Elves would stay where they are. As the idea of leaving an unwanted employer became more common, some House Elves might decide to leave and go into business for themselves, such as running a hotel or restaurant or laundry. Or an employment agency for other House Elves. This might require laws to come into sync with reality about House Elves having property rights and so on. Maybe the House Elves would rather start their own Credit Union than do their banking with Goblins. > > 5) Eventually, WSPCHE should gracefully retire, replaced by the House Elf Self Help Association. > > 6) Maybe some House Elves eventually will want to pursue entirely different careers, as curse-breakers and potioneers and Healers and joke manufacturers and book publishers. Maybe someday they'll drift so far from domestic work that more of them hire wizards as domestic servants than are hired by wizards as domestic servants. Carol responds: So wizards should impose their own values onto House-Elves, deciding what's right for them and ignoring their own wishes so they'll be just like us. Sounds like cultural imperialism to me, assuming that human culture and values (specifically, those of the WW) are superior to House-Elves values, as if House-Elves are incapable of deciding what they want (which is, clearly, domestic service to Wizards). How that's different from nineteenth-century Christian missionaries saving cannibals from their own culture by converting and educating them is unclear to me. The Wizards are deciding what's right for the Elves ("freedom") and imposing it on them. (You *will* wear clothes and earn wages because that's the *right* way to do things. And if Elves would rather wear tea towels and work for praise from a master they respect, well, the Elves must be wrong.) Somehow, I don't think that more Wizarding laws and more bureaucracy are what a_svirn has in mind. I think it's more like self-rule for House-Elves, whether they want it or not. As they obviously don't, or they'd have picked up those hats that Hermione placed in the Gryffindor Common Room. Carol, who is all for an end to self-punishment and an end to abuse by Wizards, but thinks that, otherwise, the system works fine as it is, for all concerned From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 19:58:18 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:58:18 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180812 > Magpie: > We're not, I don't think, claiming to have a practical solution. Alla: That's amazing. You do not claim to have a practical solution, but you nevertheless castigating wizards for maintaining status quo? Basically the current situation is bad, there is no way to make it any better, but current situation and wizards are bad nevertheless, because if we look only on part of what is going on it reminds us of human slavery. Magpie: We're, > describing the situation as it is. House Elves are slaves. Slavery > being bad is of course an opinion. Alla: No, you are not IMO. You are not describing situation as it is. You are taking part of what is happening with house elves and which looks as human slavery and claiming that is bad and everything else for some strange reason which I cannot understand becomes a separate issue. But if we add to this the house elves wanting the situation to remain as is, picture becomes different IMO. Magpie: > I obviously don't know enough to say exactly how to go about it. > However I do reject the idea that they can't be freed period, or that > Wizards can't free them because they care so much about House Elves > welfare. Alla: Okay then, you do reject the idea that they cannot be freed period. How can they be freed without causing them further harm? Further harm to elves I mean? Magpie: > Wizards don't make decisions based on that, they make decisions based > on what's good for themselves. House elves' desires go along with > theirs so they accomodate them. Goblins' don't, so they don't bother > themselves about upsetting them by imposing their own views. Werewolves > are just as bereft without jobs as House Elves, but Wizards pass laws > against them working (even though that is potentially even more > dangerous because werewolves get hungry). Alla: That's just not what is happening in canon IMO. Some wizards clearly care about what is happening to house elves - about their desires, some wizards do not. Those who care portrayed as good guys, those who do not - as bad guys. Just as some wizards care a whole lot about what is happening to werewolves, and some do not give a d*mn. But say none of the wizards cares about what house elves want. Let me stress - there is no way I am conceding this, since I can name at least Dumbledore and Hermione who care very much IMO, but let's say none of them does for the sake of the argument. Who cares if it is so? Whether wizards take house elves' desires into consideration - that IS house elves' desire, even if wizards do it ONLY for wizards' benefit, idea which I do not share, I think it is mutual benefit. Magpie: > Imo the biggest barrier to House Elf freedom isn't that it causes > problems because there are unemployed House Elves (not sure exactly > what kinds of problems that would cause for Wizards anyway) but that > Wizards don't want it that much. That's why they back down so quickly > in the face of what House Elves want on this issue where they don't > back down to Goblins or Werewolves or Giants. So they haven't even > tried to find an alternate solution. Alla: What alternate solution? And how do you know that this is why they back down so quickly and not because they do care? Dumbledore offered freedom to ALL Hogwarts elves, do you think that maybe when he backed down he indeed was truly concerned about House elves needs? Magpie: Who knows what would happen if > House Elves were brought up with freedom? The other Elves were > disgusted by Dobby's situation (still serving, but free and paid) but > he's alive until he's stabbed to death. Winky feels disgraced and her > disgrace leads to self-destructive behavior, but she doesn't die either. Alla: But this was horrible what was happening to Winky IMO. Are you saying that solution would be to put all house elves through what she went? And as I said, for the longest time I thought that Dobby is a sign of something different than I think now, but even he comes back to work? And I wonder how would you even free House elves? Are you suggesting to force them to take clothes for example? From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Mon Jan 21 20:51:56 2008 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:51:56 -0800 Subject: The "Tonks is Alive!" ("R-NUDGE") Club (was: Deathly Hallows and killing off my favourite) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1647160048.20080121125156@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180813 Jayne wrote: J> I have one issue with [DH]. That is that my J> favorite character in the series is killed off at the end. J> That is Remus Lupin. Dave: This is how I feel about both Remus and Tonks -- Both of their deaths seem pointless. Just to contrast Orphan!Teddy with Orphan!Harry? To what purpose? We only see him briefly in the epilogue, and I think he would likely still be happily smooching Victoire even if he had been raised in a closet under a Muggle staircase! Sadly, I don't think Remus' death is escapable, since he appears in the resurrection stone scene; but I actually hold out hope for Tonks. So I'd like to take this opportunity to propose a new Theory Club called "R-NUDGE" ("Rumors of Nymphadora's Untimely Death are 'Greatly Exaggerated'"). I think there is hope because: 1. Tonks does *not* appear in the Resurrection Stone scene. 2. Harry didn't see *how* she was killed, so there's no proof she was. (Maybe she took the Draught of Living Death?) 3. No reference is made to Teddy's upbringing (aside from his frequent visits to his godparents) in the Epilogue. Note that I'm not suggesting any of the above as direct evidence of Dora still living, only as evidence of a possible loophole for ardent Tonks fans like me. Thoughts? Dave From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 21 20:54:03 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:54:03 -0000 Subject: the mind link / Diary!Tom / wizard divorce / Draco / the Prince's book / In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180814 > > Potioncat wrote in > : > > << Would things have gone any differently if Draco had quickly agreed > [to DD's offer to hide him and his mother]? >> > Catlady: > Snape would have made it happen. I have faith in Snape's abilities. > If he'd accepted quickly enough, they could have all been off the > Tower before the DEs got there. Maybe even in time to save DD's life > from the green potion??? Potioncat: Snape didn't hear the offer. It isn't likely Draco would have had reason to tell Snape. But, if Snape somehow learned of Draco's interest I agree, he would try to make it happen-- all the while appearing not to-- but that still leaves the question: Who would they go to? ZGirnius had an idea that Draco would have to go to Harry, because he's the only Order member who heard DD make the offer. > > Catlady: > Except when Harry tried the Sectumsempra curse. And if he had tried > every spell in the book, how many others would have horrified him? The > Prince's book is no proof that young Sevvie was not interested in Dark > Magic. > > << It reminds me again of the excuse given that James didn't like > Severus because Severus was into Dark Magic. >> Potioncat: We saw in DH that James and Sirius took a dislike to Snape well before any Dark Magic came up. So while Snape may have been (ok, was) interested in Dark Magic, that wasn't why they didn't like him at first. Now that DH is over, I still maintain that in many cases Dark Magic is whatever someone else does, what I do is not Dark Magic--You know, I'm just a social drinker, but you're a lush. Given what we know about young James from Lily and others---I think if he and Severus had been Housemates, they would have followed a close path. Who knows, maybe James would have been a DE too, or maybe Severus would have been in the Order. And Lily would probably be Mrs. Longbottom. ;-) > Catlady: > Also, Harry didn't find anything in the Prince's book about wanting > to join the Death Eaters when he left school, and apparently young > Sevvie really was planning on that -- in one of his post mortem > memories, Lily denounced him and his friends for planning to be Death > Eaters and said like something like "see, you're not even trying to > deny it". Potioncat: I'd still like a good explanation for the appeal of DEs to Severus. The closest I can see, is that in school he doesn't see any difference between what Gryffindors do and what Slytherins do. I don't see how he could have loved Lily the way we know he does, and not have been worried about her much sooner. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 21 21:06:17 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:06:17 -0000 Subject: Did Snape ever believe the Trio about........... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180815 > > Danielle: > > So after reading book 7 and I think someone on the leaky forum may > have said this, reading the 3rd book has new meaning now, Snape hated > Sirius not because of the Worst Memory scene or the Prank he played on > Snape, instead Snape hated Sirius because he always believed Sirius > was the secret keeper for the potters and Snape thought it was because > of Sirius Lily died. > > hp_fan_2008: > This assumes that Snape knew the official story of Sirius's arrest. Potioncat: Snape believed Sirius betrayed the Potters. He told Harry that. Was it in PoA? Something along the line of "you're like your father who died too arrogant to believe Black would betray him." I wonder if I can find the quote before someone else does, I am sorry not to provide the actual canon. I'm not sure Snape is ever told the truth, or convinced of it before the scene at the end of GoF when Barty Crouch confesses. (Got this point from Carol at the sister list.) Snape would of course, see Wormtail when he visits LV after sent by DD. And I think we know now how brave Snape had to be to pull this off around all the DEs, but also how painful the pretense must have been. Imagine having to agree with LV that he had found other withces more worthy than Lily. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jan 21 21:17:59 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:17:59 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180816 > > Magpie: > > We're not, I don't think, claiming to have a practical solution. > > Alla: > > That's amazing. You do not claim to have a practical solution, but > you nevertheless castigating wizards for maintaining status quo? > > Basically the current situation is bad, there is no way to make it > any better, but current situation and wizards are bad nevertheless, > because if we look only on part of what is going on it reminds us of > human slavery. Magpie: I don't see why it's so amazing. It's a fictional world full of holes. The author has created House Elves, creatures that conform to a lot of common pro-slavery arguments. I don't see why I should have to pretend that I see the freedom of House Elves as impossible when canon doesn't really prove that--even though that's not something I care about one way or the other. I can't pretend to think Wizards have House Elf slaves because they care about House Elves when I definitely don't believe that--it's completely OOC for the WW that I know. There is no situation to make better--the story is over. I don't really care about House Elves being slaves--definitely not enough to castigate fictional Wizards about it. I'm just saying what I see in canon. I see Harry in the end as a happy slave owner. It's a fantasy that involves slaves. I think Carol's arguments about why it's bad to free House Elves are very valid--I think they're the logical conclusion to draw from the series. I just also think it's an argument in favor of slavery rather than against slavery: They like being slaves, it's impractical to free them, it's not bad if they like it etc. Those are arguments for why slavery is good in this situation. > Magpie: > We're, > > describing the situation as it is. House Elves are slaves. Slavery > > being bad is of course an opinion. > > > Alla: > > No, you are not IMO. You are not describing situation as it is. You > are taking part of what is happening with house elves and which > looks as human slavery and claiming that is bad and everything else > for some strange reason which I cannot understand becomes a separate > issue. But if we add to > this the house elves wanting the situation to remain as is, picture > becomes different IMO. Magpie: I'm describing the situation how I see it. I just said that 'slavery is bad' is an opinion. House elves being slaves is not an opinion, that's canon. They're owned. I don't think it's slavery because it "looks like" human slavery, I think it's slavery because slavery means being owned by another person and being subject to their will. There's plenty of ways it *doesn't* look like human slavery, but that doesn't make it not slavery. House Elf nature just makes people have different reactions to the idea of them being enslaved. Slaves being happy or wanting to be slaves has never had any bearing on their being slaves. > Magpie: > > I obviously don't know enough to say exactly how to go about it. > > However I do reject the idea that they can't be freed period, or > that > > Wizards can't free them because they care so much about House > Elves > > welfare. > > > Alla: > > Okay then, you do reject the idea that they cannot be freed period. > How can they be freed without causing them further harm? Further > harm to elves I mean? Magpie: I'd have to make stuff up and speculate outside of canon to come up with something so I don't know how helpful that would be. That's why I don't accept the idea that canon has in any way proved that it's just impossible and there's nothing to be done, or assume that all the stuff people speculate about on that side is true. The point is, I don't want to crawl inside of canon and come up with a solution. I'm making a more meta argument. I agree that your argument that it's not bad slavery or isn't slavery because they like it and Carol's argument that it's more humane to keep them owned because they can't live any other way are perfectly logical conclusions to draw from the series. I think that's what the series seems to be saying too. I just don't think that's an anti-slavery argument. It doesn't make it not slavery by any definition of slavery I've ever heard. > Magpie: > > Wizards don't make decisions based on that, they make decisions > based > > on what's good for themselves. House elves' desires go along with > > theirs so they accomodate them. Goblins' don't, so they don't > bother > > themselves about upsetting them by imposing their own views. > Werewolves > > are just as bereft without jobs as House Elves, but Wizards pass > laws > > against them working (even though that is potentially even more > > dangerous because werewolves get hungry). > > Alla: > > That's just not what is happening in canon IMO. Some wizards clearly > care about what is happening to house elves - about their desires, > some wizards do not. Those who care portrayed as good guys, those > who do not - as bad guys. Magpie: Yes, they're caring slave owners. House Elves are lucky to be owned by them. But you claimed that the reason House Elf slavery existed was because Elves wanted it and so Wizards had to do it, and that goes beyond noting that Herimone, Dumbledore, Harry, Ron and others have canonically cared about the well-being of House Elves. If we're talking about why the institution of House Elf slavery exists the way it was, I don't think it holds up at all to say that it exists because Wizards honor the desires and customs of this other race. Because we see them happy to override the desires of other races when they conflict with them--I can't think of a single other institution in Wizard society that's based on that principle. So I still believe just as strongly that the reason they've got this set up with House Elves is not because Wizards felt obligated to do what House Elves wanted, but because what House Elves want was beneficial to Wizards. There are times when House Elves get what they want under the system too. But even the Wizards you hold up as caring about House Elves make their own needs a priority. > > > Magpie: > > Imo the biggest barrier to House Elf freedom isn't that it causes > > problems because there are unemployed House Elves (not sure > exactly > > what kinds of problems that would cause for Wizards anyway) but > that > > Wizards don't want it that much. That's why they back down so > quickly > > in the face of what House Elves want on this issue where they > don't > > back down to Goblins or Werewolves or Giants. So they haven't even > > tried to find an alternate solution. > > Alla: > > What alternate solution? And how do you know that this is why they > back down so quickly and not because they do care? Dumbledore > offered freedom to ALL Hogwarts elves, do you think that maybe when > he backed down he indeed was truly concerned about House elves needs? Magpie: The alternate solution that they haven't tried to find, obviously. I can hardly describe something that doesn't exist. I think if House Elf slavery was really an issue Wizards cared about yeah, they would try to find some solution. I've never seen any indication that anybody cares that much and on the contrary I have canonical support for the average Wizard not caring. We've seen some individual Wizards caring enough to offer House Elves their freedom before they settle into being slave owner. Since they don't want it, the pov of the books seems to be that it's fine. Which seems to be what you're arguing as well. I'm not disagreeing with that. That seems to be the same conclusion drawn by everyone and the author in canon. But I don't think this makes the condition not slavery. Rather I think it's created a condition in which slavery is supposed to be a good thing. What a great fantasy for the would-be slave owner. It's great. > Magpie: > Who knows what would happen if > > House Elves were brought up with freedom? The other Elves were > > disgusted by Dobby's situation (still serving, but free and paid) > but > > he's alive until he's stabbed to death. Winky feels disgraced and > her > > disgrace leads to self-destructive behavior, but she doesn't die > either. > > Alla: > > But this was horrible what was happening to Winky IMO. Are you > saying that solution would be to put all house elves through what > she went? Magpie: A practical solution would have to take this into account. It might not be easy. (Though I wonder how many Wizards even then would personally care unless it directly affected them.) Alla: > And I wonder how would you even free House elves? Are you suggesting > to force them to take clothes for example? Magpie: Freeing a house elf isn't itself undoable--Winky is let go against her wishes. The trouble isn't being unable to free them but the problems that would result for them and the Wizards. -m From afn01288 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 21:29:14 2008 From: afn01288 at yahoo.com (Troy Doyle) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:29:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180817 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 NOTE: This ChapDisc is the work of AFN. Mike only posted it for him. -------------------------------------------------------------------- CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter Twelve, Magic Is Might As Chapter 12 opens, Harry, Ron, and Hermione (HRH), are as comfortably hidden in #12 Grimmauld Place as they ever will be. Kreacher is now helpful and has retrieved Mundungus, who reveals Umbridge is now in possession of the horcrux locket. The Trio realize that to get the locket back will require access to Umbridge and the Ministry of Magic. While Death Eaters lurk around outside, life in Grimmauld Place has taken a turn for the better in that Kreacher, no longer antagonistic to HRH, cleans, cooks, and seems to take pride in pleasing the Trio. Yet they are in for more surprises and concerns. From the Daily Prophet which Harry obtained by apparating under the invisibility cloak, they learn that Snape has been appointed Headmaster at Hogwarts. Speculation about what this entails ensues. They realize Hogwarts will be very different this year and also express nostalgia that they will not be going back to school for the beginning of that term. Hermione also realizes through the portrait of Phineas Nigellus in Grimmauld Place Phineas can go to his other portrait in the Headmaster's office and hence have communication with Snape. So, his Grimmauld Place portrait gets stuffed into the now familiar beaded bag. The Trio begin their plan to try to get the locket horcrux from Umbridge and decide they should infiltrate the Ministry of Magic. Their surveillance of the Ministry has given them a good deal of information as to how it is entered and exited, the approximate location, and so forth. With much trepidation, they decide that it is time to act. While finalizing the plan, Harry has another painful scar pain on his forehead. By now he cannot really hide these episodes well from the others. Harry has a vision, which we later confirm is what Voldemort is experiencing at the time. He sees a foreign city and hears Voldemort ask the woman who opens a door for Gregorovitch. Harry sees her fear and hears replies in a foreign language, pleading that Gregorovitch is not there. Then he sees her and two children fired upon with a wand and a flash of green light. Harry regains his normal consciousness violently to the sound of Hermione's shouts. Confronted directly by Hermione, he tells what he experienced. All three discuss whether Harry should be trying to stop the visions, but he insists he must know what Voldemort is doing, much to the chagrin of Ron and Hermione. Discussing the scene, Harry explains that Gregorivitch is another expert wandmaker, along with Ollivander, who made Victor Krum's wand. What this could mean is not resolved. So the three set out on their quest at the Ministry, not realizing they'll no longer be able to use Grimmauld Place as sanctuary from Death Eaters hunting them. Armed with a number of things they believe useful, including their ever handy supply of Polyjuice Potion, they apparate just outside the Ministry, lying in wait for employees whose identities they will assume. Hermione stuns Mafalda Hopkirk and assumes her identity. Then Hermione makes magical maintenance worker Reg Cattermole eat a puking pastille, so they can get the hairs they'll need for Ron's transformation. Finally inflicting a nosebleed on another worker, they get hairs for Harry. After flushing themselves into the Ministry, they immediately see that the Magical Brethren statue has been replaced to fit the new regime. The new statue depicts a witch and wizard sitting on thrones that are portrayals of Muggles, now in their rightful place, to go along with the inscription "Magic is Might." Finding out more about who they're impersonating, the Trio proceed by taking the elevator, keen on pursuing their goal but not getting caught at the ruse. Ron, as Reg, gets sent on a task by Yaxley. Then as Harry and Hermione ascend to the floor for the Minister of Magic and Support Staff, discussing the advisability of sending Ron on his own, the doors open and they come squarely into abrupt contact with none other than Umbridge herself. Discussion Questions 1. Were you surprised that the trio were apparating to Grimmauld Place on the top outside step and why? 2. Harry says if Umbridge opened the locket it would make no difference, since she was so evil to start with; however she did wear it awhile. Could its influence possibly have made her even more malevolent than in the past? 3. Did you even think before we see the tidy kitchen that Kreacher's transformation and efforts to please would or could be so dramatic? 4. We find out Snape is the new Headmaster at Hogwarts. Who else did you think might take this place? Perhaps as Deputy Headmistress in the past it could have been McGonagall? 5. Since Hermione got Phineas's picture off the wall, has she learned how to defeat the charms that keep other pictures from being removed or was Phineas's portrait not stuck to begin with? 6. What did you think about upon learning of the plot to infiltrate the Ministry in search of Umbridge and the horcrux? They discuss timing, strategy, and logistics and express their own misgivings. Could or should they have tried to get the horcrux in a less dangerous and complicated manner? 7. There was concern over the painful scar Voldemort visions, about Voldemort invading Harry's mind. Why didn't Voldemort ever try to invade Harry's mind? Did the fact that Harry had a scar and that Voldemort presumably did not have anything to do with this? 8. Did you find anything particularly interesting about how the trio actually physically got into the Ministry building? 9. They will have to leave Grimmauld Place after the incident. How did you feel about the location while they are there? For instance, is it a safe refuge, Harry's real home, and positively nostalgic of former times there, or merely an expedient and sometimes unpleasant one at that? ~AFN -------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database Next chapdisc, Chapter 13, The Muggle-born Registration Commission ? February 4, 2008 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 22:11:19 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:11:19 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180818 > > Alla: > > > > That's amazing. You do not claim to have a practical solution, but > > you nevertheless castigating wizards for maintaining status quo? . > > Magpie: > I don't see why it's so amazing. It's a fictional world full of > holes. The author has created House Elves, creatures that conform to > a lot of common pro-slavery arguments. I don't see why I should have > to pretend that I see the freedom of House Elves as impossible when > canon doesn't really prove that--even though that's not something I > care about one way or the other. Alla: It is amazing to me because this way the other side can never score a single point in this argument. It is like saying IMO - Dumbledore is BAD for leaving Harry with Dursleys, very very bad. I have no better solution for what he should have done at all, BUT he is bad. I do not see what other side can offer when the argument is framed that way. It is predetermined already. And I am offering my own argument as an example by the way, so it is not like I had never done it myself, I just realized. In my example I would think it automatically assumes that my position is weaker since I cannot offer any other solution for DD, that means that his decision holds at least some ground, no? Just as here, if one cannot offer any solution other than status quo, doesn't it mean that status quo is better for all parties involved? > Magpie: > I'm describing the situation how I see it. I just said that 'slavery > is bad' is an opinion. House elves being slaves is not an opinion, > that's canon. They're owned. I don't think it's slavery because > it "looks like" human slavery, I think it's slavery because slavery > means being owned by another person and being subject to their will. > There's plenty of ways it *doesn't* look like human slavery, but that > doesn't make it not slavery. Alla: I really do not know what to say except to say again that to me being owned and being subject to their will is an incomplete definition of slavery. Magpie: House Elf nature just makes people have > different reactions to the idea of them being enslaved. Slaves being > happy or wanting to be slaves has never had any bearing on their > being slaves. Alla: But it does in mine. > Magpie: > I'd have to make stuff up and speculate outside of canon to come up > with something so I don't know how helpful that would be. That's why > I don't accept the idea that canon has in any way proved that it's > just impossible and there's nothing to be done, or assume that all > the stuff people speculate about on that side is true. Alla: How canon did not prove that it is not possible to free house elves if they do not want to be free? Magpie: > The point is, I don't want to crawl inside of canon and come up with > a solution. I'm making a more meta argument. I agree that your > argument that it's not bad slavery or isn't slavery because they like > it and Carol's argument that it's more humane to keep them owned > because they can't live any other way are perfectly logical > conclusions to draw from the series. I think that's what the series > seems to be saying too. I just don't think that's an anti-slavery > argument. It doesn't make it not slavery by any definition of slavery > I've ever heard. Alla: Usually it takes me a few posts to slap my fingers, but I am going to try. Basically to me house elves not desire to be freed makes all the difference in the world. > Magpie: > But you claimed that the reason House Elf slavery existed was because > Elves wanted it and so Wizards had to do it, and that goes beyond > noting that Herimone, Dumbledore, Harry, Ron and others have > canonically cared about the well-being of House Elves. Alla: No, I did not. I guess I was that unclear. We have no idea why House elves "slavery" ( yes, I cannot call it as such) come to exist of course, but I believe that it continues to exist because elves want it AND because wizards want it, mutually beneficial. Of course I do not claim that wizards started it because elves wanted it, I have no clue. Although I totally will not be surprised if we learn from encyclopedia that first house elf came to wizards and offered himself to serve them. Or there was that idea that house elves were magically created by wizards to serve them, sort of artificial race, but just speculation. > Alla: > > And I wonder how would you even free House elves? Are you > suggesting > > to force them to take clothes for example? > > Magpie: > Freeing a house elf isn't itself undoable--Winky is let go against > her wishes. The trouble isn't being unable to free them but the > problems that would result for them and the Wizards. Alla: Right, if it is done Winky's way, it is not undoable, of course. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 23:16:06 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:16:06 -0000 Subject: House Elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180819 > Carol's plaintive cry: > > still wondering what this glorious "freedom" to be imposed on > > the House-Elves against their will would consist of Goddlefrood, with belated greetings from the South Seas to Carol for a post from 9th January. I get there eventually. This house-elf business. I don't think we can go away from the plain fact that house-elves, like slaves (whether Roman, Greek, African or other), are servile to a master and exist at the master's whim. This in the sense that if a master is unhappy with their elf for whatever reason (like Winky), or is tricked into releasing the elf (like Dobby) or even voluntarily frees the elf (like no elf in the books), then the elf would find him / herself freed. Also, having thought about this a little since the last time I posted on the subject, there is one quite big difference between house-elves and human slaves. That is the fact that they at no time during the course of the books are traded. They belong to a family, or perhaps, like hobs, to a location. This latter would explain why there are concentrations of elves in certain spots, Hogwarts being the one location in the books that we are aware of that has multiple elves. >From Dictionary of English Folklore by Jacqueline Simpson and Steve Roud: "hob. In the north of England and some Midlands counties, hob was the most common name for rough, hairy creatures of the brownie type, whose work brought prosperity to farms; like brownies, they might become mischievous nuisances if annoyed, and would leave for ever if given new clothes. On the other hand, it might prove impossible to get rid of a troublesome hob" Should the elves be freed en masse, and there is no indication that they would be in the books, then I don't think they would actually have much of a change in their circumstances. They would undoubtedly continue to work as domestic servants for witches and wizards. Whether they were paid or not would depend on the individual elf. Dobby's being paid in GoF was repugnant to most of the elves, iirc, and it was he who had to do a good deal of, if not all, the cleaning of Gryffindor Tower because of Hermione's attempt to trick elves into taking clothes. They did not want to be freed in that manner. This simply means that the elves are content - even if unenlightened about other possibilities - with their lot. Whether they should be content or not is probably hardly worth getting into because: (i) They are fictional, even if based on those real hobs (with which many have had tremendous problems throughout history); (ii) They are unlike real world slaves in that they are not tradable; and (iii) They are fundamentally bound to the wizarding world as constituted in the books whether they like it or not pursuant to various laws for concealment. Also, if they were freed, the Elf Relocation Office and whatever other support groups there might be would no doubt assist in ensuring that the elves were taken care of. Each country's Ministry is apparently responsible for the hiding of magical creatures and, thus, there is an obligation to continue to hold the elves within the WW. Basically there would be little, if any, effect of freeing the house-elves, except that they would no longer be slaves but servants. Goddlefrood From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 23:25:59 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:25:59 -0000 Subject: House elves (WAS: realistic solutions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180820 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > Alla: > > > But they also LIKE that arrangement as long as they are not > abused. > > > In what society is that happening to slaves? > > > > a_svirn: > > For one thing it is a separate issue. To say they like being owned > is > > to say that they like being slaves. Because being owned means > being a > > slave. In any language known to me, at least. > > > Alla: > > I know I can be unclear but > I cannot believe that I am that unclear. Please refer to Mike's > excellent recent post to see my POV pretty much. (I mean refer not > as reread, I see that you replied to him, but just to say that it is > reflects what I think in much clearer language). I thought he > described it very well, but for one more time I am going to be a > parrot. YES. I Agree. They ARE owned. And moreover I AGREE in *our > language and culture* they can be called slaves. That's the extent > of my agreement though. As long as them liking to serve the wizards > does not come into play. > > And here we go again. Let me ask you - who determined that this is a > separate issue? Canon? a_svirn: No, not canon. Logic, I believe. I am sorry: it seems that I am being unclear. I get your premise that their liking of what they are make all the difference for their (non)being slaves. What I quite honestly don't get is why it does not make any difference whatsoever to their being owned? All those real life slaves who don't like being slaves don't like being owned either. > Alla: > They liked it because they did not know better, because they were > traumatized and did not know how to be free. Elves like it even when > they ARE knowing better (have master who offers to pay them, to free > them, etc a_svirn: The same argument can be made about elves. Do they know better? Not likely, since they obviously have been owned by wizards for centuries. And vice versa ? the argument about human slaves' different nature has been at play for centuries. > a_svirn: > > In any case, their liking of being owned does NOT change the fact > > that they are. Owned. And the fact that being owned means being a > > slave. Honestly, every one the thousand of Solomon's concubines > > perhaps liked to be owned by him. That doesn't change the fact > that > > they were concubines. > > Alla: > > And who is arguing with this again as long as you are adding the > words "in our culture"? a_svirn: See above, I guess. > Alla: > > AHA. So let me ask you. How do you know that wizards take elves' > inclination to serve only when it suits them. Neither Mike no I deny > that it suits wizards as well obviously. But I see no indication > that wizards are not truly concerned about providing what is best > for the elves either. > > Good guys that is. Dumbledore tries to improve Hogwarts elves > situation and offers freedom, etc. And then he does what they truly > want, doesn't he? a_svirn: First of all I was using wizards as a generic term. Dumbledore seems to be the only one who did indeed something for elves. But then, he was an oddity among wizards pretty much like Dobby was an oddity among elves. There is no other examples in canon, that I know of. > Alla: > What IS your solution? You think wizards should free them, whether > they want it or not? And if possible, please answer without saying > that this is a separate issue, otherwise we cannot go anywhere. To > me it is not and I really really want to know what do you suggest > they should do if it is to you human slavery, full stop. Should > they do what Russian tsar did and make a law that all elves are > free ? > > Suggestions? a_svirn: I haven't got any. I've got no facts for starters. I don't know how those enchantments work, I don't know much about the current laws etc. But I'd like to see Harry more uncomfortable about being a slave- owner. I'd like Sirius to be fair and not to bend to his will someone who obviously doesn't want to have anything to do with him. Actually, that's I think the answer ? fairness. Neither Harry, nor Sirius is fair to Kreacher. They certainly do not take his wishes, inclinations etc. into consideration. They simply exercise their right as (slave-) owners. I'd like to see a bit of civil activism, not like that stupid SPEW thing, but more in a sense of what Dumbledore did. I'd like certain awareness among the good guys that it is not quite the thing to take advantage of those who are inferior. That's what Sirius seemed to preach, but failed to do. As for Russia, the reform was so disastrous precisely because there wasn't any civil right movement. It was up to the bureaucracy to do the thing, no wonder they messed-up. It is pitiful, honestly, that not even single one of Decembrists bothered to set their own serfs free. (And they could do it under 1803 legislation.) They scribbled away drafts of constitutions, but they wouldn't set an example with their own peasants. Of course the reform failed. But does it mean that they had to leave serfs as they were? > Alla: > > I would love to know the actual answer to Mike's question, because > to me the answer to you is very simple. > But should we FREE him? Should we FREE Kreacher? a_svirn: My answer? Kreacher should serve where he wants to serve. He wants to serve the true heirs of the Noble House of Black? Well, let him. It is not FAIR to force him to serve someone who is repugnant to him. a_svirn From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 21 23:39:45 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:39:45 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180821 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > The point is, I don't want to crawl inside of canon and come up with > a solution. I'm making a more meta argument. I agree that your > argument that it's not bad slavery or isn't slavery because they like > it and Carol's argument that it's more humane to keep them owned > because they can't live any other way are perfectly logical > conclusions to draw from the series. I think that's what the series > seems to be saying too. I just don't think that's an anti-slavery > argument. Pippin: Harry being okay with owning Kreacher is no more a pro-slavery argument than burning a book to keep a child from freezing to death is an argument against literacy, or a plane crash victim eating human flesh is an argument for cannibalism. At the end of the book, Kreacher's slavery is not providing any marginal benefit to Harry beyond the few sickles that he saves by not paying him, since if Kreacher could be freed without trauma he would gladly work for Harry anyway. There are, as you say, benefits to wizards owning slaves in general. But if Harry fairly weighs the benefits to wizards of owning slaves against the costs, he will come smack up against the death of Sirius. I still don't see how any number of free meals would make him think it was worth it. It doesn't matter that he himself may never make the mistakes that Sirius made, it only matters that other wizards might. I can't see how this is a pro-slavery argument. Unless what you're saying is that any cost benefit analysis of slavery is wrong because it implies that slavery would be okay if the benefits exceeded the costs? But that's shutting off a line of argument that might persuade people who already think that they benefit from slavery for the sake of fostering a morally pure stance among those who already oppose it. Seems cock-eyed to me, especially if you're aim is to educate those who oppose something about how to convince those who aren't so enlightened as yet. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 21 23:48:51 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:48:51 -0000 Subject: House elves (WAS: realistic solutions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180822 Alla: > > And here we go again. Let me ask you - who determined that this is > a > > separate issue? Canon? > > a_svirn: > No, not canon. Logic, I believe. Alla: I do not get this logic. Here how it looks to me. Say we are discussing Prank. I defend Sirius and you defend Snape. I say that the only issue to discuss is whether Snape was eavesdropping to get Marauders into trouble and the issue of whether he knew that Remus was a werewolf and that he will meet a werewolf there is completely separate issue. This issue makes no bearing on the situation whatsoever. And you will respond with the only issue to discuss is whether Sirius tried to kill Snape or just to scare him and whether Snape was eavesdropping does not really matter. And both our imaginary responses look bizarre to me, because it seems to me that both of us are arbitrarily excluding the issues which should be discussed together, otherwise the assesment of the situation is incomplete. One of them cannot be discussed without another IMO. Same here - I do not see how the issue whether house elves are slaves or not can be discussed without the fact that they are liking to serve wizards. a_svirn: I am sorry: it seems that I am being > unclear. I get your premise that their liking of what they are make > all the difference for their (non)being slaves. Alla: YAY. What I quite honestly > don't get is why it does not make any difference whatsoever to their > being owned? All those real life slaves who don't like being slaves > don't like being owned either. Alla: I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of the first sentence here. What does not make any difference to their being owned? The fact that they like it? Could you clarify please? > a_svirn: > The same argument can be made about elves. Do they know better? Not > likely, since they obviously have been owned by wizards for > centuries. And vice versa ? the argument about human slaves' > different nature has been at play for centuries. Alla: I do not see how it can be. The only reason I am able to make this argument about human slaves is because I know better in retrospective. After reading the psychological explanations, etc. I see no reason that house elves have the same thoughts processes as humans and I see how freed elves feel and I believe therefore they DO know better. IMO of course. They tried the taste of freedom and rejected it. > > Alla: > > > > And who is arguing with this again as long as you are adding the > > words "in our culture"? > > a_svirn: > See above, I guess. Alla: Sorry, unclear again I am afraid. > a_svirn: > I haven't got any. I've got no facts for starters. I don't know how > those enchantments work, I don't know much about the current laws > etc. But I'd like to see Harry more uncomfortable about being a slave- > owner. I'd like Sirius to be fair and not to bend to his will someone > who obviously doesn't want to have anything to do with him. Actually, > that's I think the answer ? fairness. Neither Harry, nor Sirius is > fair to Kreacher. They certainly do not take his wishes, inclinations > etc. into consideration. They simply exercise their right as (slave-) > owners. I'd like to see a bit of civil activism, not like that stupid > SPEW thing, but more in a sense of what Dumbledore did. I'd like > certain awareness among the good guys that it is not quite the thing > to take advantage of those who are inferior. That's what Sirius > seemed to preach, but failed to do. Alla: But it is a circular argument IMO. You want them to be uncomfortable as slave owners because you think of them as slave owners. I think of them as house elf owners. But in any event, this is not exactly the question I was asking for. Doesn't canon suggest loud and clear that Sirius' behavior towards Kreacher and Harry's behavior towards him was indeed wrong? So, I do not disagree - fairness should be exercised, but my question was, I thought you were suggesting they should be freed. And that what I was asking you about. If you were not suggesting that they should be freed, just that wizards be fairer to them, I am not sure what are we arguing about. > > Alla: > > > > I would love to know the actual answer to Mike's question, because > > to me the answer to you is very simple. > > But should we FREE him? Should we FREE Kreacher? > > a_svirn: > My answer? Kreacher should serve where he wants to serve. He wants to > serve the true heirs of the Noble House of Black? Well, let him. It > is not FAIR to force him to serve someone who is repugnant to him. > Alla: Yes of course and I thought it was clear that Kreacher at the end wants very much to serve under Harry, no? So, what again is wrong with his situation and how it should be rectified? Are you saying he still does not want to serve under Harry? He did not want in HBP, but now he seems very wanting to me, the little bastard. Goddlefrood: Also, having thought about this a little since the last time I posted on the subject, there is one quite big difference between house-elves and human slaves. That is the fact that they at no time during the course of the books are traded. They belong to a family, or perhaps, like hobs, to a location. This latter would explain why there are concentrations of elves in certain spots, Hogwarts being the one location in the books that we are aware of that has multiple elves. Alla: Yes, brilliant post. Another difference it looks to me indeed and those are again the folklor roots of the elves. We also have brownies, etc. But it seems like hob I am learning about for the first time. THANKS :) So, here we have JKR mixing two folklore creatures together IMO and getting house elf - creature that attached to location and likes to serve, fictional one. I just do not see it as slavery. Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 00:27:46 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:27:46 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180823 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > > The point is, I don't want to crawl inside of canon and come up with > > a solution. I'm making a more meta argument. I agree that your > > argument that it's not bad slavery or isn't slavery because they like > > it and Carol's argument that it's more humane to keep them owned > > because they can't live any other way are perfectly logical > > conclusions to draw from the series. I think that's what the series > > seems to be saying too. I just don't think that's an anti-slavery > > argument. > > Pippin: > Harry being okay with owning Kreacher is no more a pro-slavery > argument than burning a book to keep a child from freezing to death > is an argument against literacy, or a plane crash victim eating human > flesh is an argument for cannibalism. a_svirn: It is, if you praise it and call it mutually beneficial. If you throw in the argument that we can't even really call it cannibalism in this situation, since the person that was eaten had no real objection to being eaten and even gave his blessings (like Pedrillo in Byron's Don Juan), then it's really an argument for "cannibalism" in quotation marks to be a good thing in some subcultures, at least. > Pippin: At the end of the book, > Kreacher's slavery is not providing any marginal benefit to Harry beyond the > few sickles that he saves by not paying him, a_svirn: Ah, but you don't take in consideration the time Kreacher saves for Harry, and will save for Ginny. The time that they she will be free to spend working and earning money. > Pippin: since if Kreacher could > be freed without trauma he would gladly work for Harry anyway. a_svirn: That's not a valid argument for not freeing him. What if he changed his mind? What if he didn't want to serve James, when James inherit? a_svirn From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 01:07:07 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:07:07 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180824 > Carol responds: > > Will someone *please* tell me what you think would and should happen > if the House-Elves were freed? In what way would conditions be better? > I see unhappiness and chaos, myself. I *don't* see House-Elves > attending Hogwarts, learning to use wands, and becoming miniature > humans, with all our economic and political problems. What's this > Utopia you envision? All I've seen is this argument: > > House-Elves are slaves. > Slavery is bad. > Therefore, House-Elves should be freed. Montavilla47: That's not the argument that I've been seeing. What I've been seeing, as from Sistermagpie, is that there *isn't* a problem with House-Elf slavery (within the books). Slavery is depicted as fine and dandy, as long as the Master is a good master and doesn't abuse his slave. When he does, bad things happen (Dobby gets ideas about freedom, Kreacher betrays his master to the enemy). When Harry is good and thinks about his slave's feelings, then he gets valuable information, a clean house, and treacle tarts. Again, I would find this an excellent moral for a kid growing up in a society with slaves (or a servant class). It would fit right in in Edwardian England, as you'd want you future leaders to grow up treating their servants nicely, instead of being spoiled tyrants. It's just weird when it's toted as being a statement on slavery, because the ultimate message is that slavery, when the institution itself isn't abused by bad people, is okay. More than that, really. Because the opposite--the freeing of slaves in this case, is a positive evil, leading to depression and alcoholism. Carol: > So, please. Describe this ideal solution to the "problem" of House-Elf > "slavery" in our imaginary WW. Montavilla47: As you say, there aren't really any ideal solutions. Which is why it's both plausible and absurd that Hermione's supposedly going to make a difference once she gets into power. Plausible, because any solution is going to be slow and anything Hermione can do will probably make it better for those elves who are being abused. Absurd because nothing can really be done until the institution is abolished, and it won't be because both Wizards and Elves are dependent on it. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 01:09:02 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:09:02 -0000 Subject: House elves (WAS: realistic solutions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180825 > a_svirn: > What I quite honestly > > don't get is why it does not make any difference whatsoever to > their > > being owned? All those real life slaves who don't like being > slaves > > don't like being owned either. > > Alla: > > I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of the first sentence > here. What does not make any difference to their being owned? The > fact that they like it? Could you clarify please? a_svirn: Well. I seem to be more than usual obscure. Let's try it this way. Axiom1. Being owned means being slaves. Syllogism 1. Premise A. The main characteristic of slavery is that slaves do not like being what they are. Premise B. Elves like being what they are. Ergo: Elves aren't slaves. Syllogism 2 Premise A. The main characteristic of slavery is that those who are owned do not like being what they are. Premise B. Elves like being what they are. Ergo: Elves aren't owned. Axiom 2. Elves are being owned in canon. Conclusion: Something is wrong ? either axioms, or premises. Which? > > a_svirn: > > The same argument can be made about elves. Do they know better? > Not > > likely, since they obviously have been owned by wizards for > > centuries. And vice versa ? the argument about human slaves' > > different nature has been at play for centuries. > > > Alla: > > I do not see how it can be. The only reason I am able to make this > argument about human slaves is because I know better in > retrospective. After reading the psychological explanations, etc. I > see no reason that house elves have the same thoughts processes as > humans and I see how freed elves feel and I believe therefore they > DO know better. IMO of course. They tried the taste of freedom and > rejected it. a_svirn: Isn't it a bit of a sweeping conclusion? We saw the total of two elves who tried the taste of freedom and exactly half of them liked it just fine. And have you never read how fearful of freedom can be convicts who served long terms and face the unknown free (and often insecure) life? > Alla: > But in any event, this is not exactly the question I was asking for. > > Doesn't canon suggest loud and clear that Sirius' behavior towards > Kreacher and Harry's behavior towards him was indeed wrong? a_svirn: No, it doesn't, not in the way I mean. The canon suggests that they were not kind enough. I say that they were unfair. > Alla: > So, I do not disagree - fairness should be exercised, but my > question was, I thought you were suggesting they should be freed. a_svirn: But, Alla, if Kreacher is free to choose his master he is free period. He isn't owned anymore. > > > Alla: > > > > > > I would love to know the actual answer to Mike's question, > because > > > to me the answer to you is very simple. > > > But should we FREE him? Should we FREE Kreacher? > > > > a_svirn: > > My answer? Kreacher should serve where he wants to serve. He wants > to > > serve the true heirs of the Noble House of Black? Well, let him. > It > > is not FAIR to force him to serve someone who is repugnant to him. > > > > Alla: > > Yes of course and I thought it was clear that Kreacher at the end > wants very much to serve under Harry, no? a_svirn: So what? Harry did not change his views on slavery, pardon, ownership, did he? He owns Kreacher because he can, not because Kreacher's change of heart. a_svirn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 01:36:31 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:36:31 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180826 --- Troy Doyle wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, > Chapter Twelve, Magic Is Might > > ... > > Discussion Questions > > 1. Were you surprised that the trio were apparating to > Grimmauld Place on the top outside step and why? > bboyminn: Actually, no, it made perfect sense to me. Though I don't think anything in the previous books established that the top step was inside the bounds of the Secret Keeper Charm, it still made sense to me. > 2. Harry says if Umbridge opened the locket it would make no > difference, since she was so evil to start with; however she > did wear it awhile. Could its influence possibly have made > her even more malevolent than in the past? > bboyminn: I never really thought about it before, but since Umbridge was wearing a Horcrux it was bound to affect her. Though I absolutely don't think it effected her enough to excuse her actions. She knew what she was doing, and I hope she paid a price for it. So, to directy answer your question, yes I think it did make her more malevolent, but not to the extent where she can use it as an excuse. > 3. Did you even think before we see the tidy kitchen that > Kreacher's transformation and efforts to please would or > could be so dramatic? > bboyminn: I knew and predicted that Kreacher would either come around or would die a very early and unpleasant death. I think the actual transition could have had a few more details to explain, that Regulus was against Voldemort, and so Kreacher should also now be against Voldemort. I think it was explained well enough for the readers to understand, but I didn't feel it was presented to Kreacher in enough detail for him to understand. Although, he may be smarter than I am giving him credit for. > 4. We find out Snape is the new Headmaster at Hogwarts. Who > else did you think might take this place? Perhaps as Deputy > Headmistress in the past it could have been McGonagall? > bboyminn: Well, I thought Snape would be headmaster eventually. I envisioned McGonagall taking over as head and then there being an attack in which the DE's took over Hogwarts and put Snape in charge. So, even though it didn't play out exactly as I had planned, I was not at all surprised that Snape was made headmaster. > 5. Since Hermione got Phineas's picture off the wall, has > she learned how to defeat the charms that keep other pictures > from being removed or was Phineas's portrait not stuck to > begin with? > bboyminn: I think the only reasonable conclusion is the Phineas's portrait was mounted by normal means, so it would come right off the wall. Though consider this, Phineas could not only move from Hogwarts to the Black House, he could move from portrait to portrait at either place. So, why didn't he just leave his own portrait in Hermione's bag, and go to one of the other portraits in the Black house? Perhaps, when the portrait was removed from the wall, it, in a sense, became disconnected from the other portraits in the house. > 6. What did you think about upon learning of the plot to > infiltrate the Ministry in search of Umbridge and the horcrux? > They discuss timing, strategy, and logistics and express their > own misgivings. Could or should they have tried to get the > horcrux in a less dangerous and complicated manner? > bboyminn: The only other means would have been to attack Umbridge in her own home. And to do that, they would have had to know where she lived. Now in the real world, all you have to do is follow someone to find out where they live. But with Floo and Apparation that becomes infinitely more complex. They did however know that Umbridge would always be in the Ministry during the day, and with Poly-disguises they wouldn't stand out much. Still I don't think they counted on the fact that the people they were impersonating had regular jobs to do. They envisioned themselves wandering around in quite recognizable form, coming and going as they please without anyone giving it a thought. But they obviously didn't count on being asked to do their jobs. > 7. There was concern over the painful scar Voldemort visions, > about Voldemort invading Harry's mind. Why didn't Voldemort > ever try to invade Harry's mind? Did the fact that Harry had > a scar and that Voldemort presumably did not have anything to . do with this? > bboyminn: I don't think Voldemort could invade Harry's mind to the extent that Harry could invade Voldemort's. It was a two-way connection but much stronger in the Harry to Voldemort direction. In Harry's first experience with Voldemort implanting thoughts in his mind, Harry ignored the very unreasonable and irrational aspect of his vision, all of which were pointed out to him by Hermione. But it was the first time, and it so closely mimicked his vision of Arthur being attacked that he couldn't possibly ignore it. Now, after the fact, any illogical visions that Voldemort might plant in Harry's mind would be questioned very deeply and thoroughly before being acted upon. I personally think that Voldemort knew he could not effectively play that card twice. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me'. I think Voldemort could have implanted thoughts and visions in Harry's mind, but he couldn't actually force Harry to act on them. Voldemort, if he were smart, could have perhaps planted false information. For example, he could have planted the vision of himself being in London, while actually being in Eastern Europe. Again, that would have been somewhat weak because it seems that many knew Voldemort was abroad. So, really, I can't think of any vision Voldemort could have planted that would have mattered to Harry. I'm sure he could have planted dark brutal visions in Harry just to torment him, but Voldemort seems to have places to go and things to do, he can't sit around all day in a dark room planting vision in Harry's mind. > 8. Did you find anything particularly interesting about how > the trio actually physically got into the Ministry building? > bboyminn: Well, I thought is was fun and funny having to enter by stepping into a toilet, but other than that, I didn't have a problem. Keep in mind that they way the entered was not the normal way. Previously, if I remember right, everyone apparated or Floo into the Atrium of the Ministry. It was only after the DE's took over that everyone had the enter and exit by this most inconveniently means. > 9. They will have to leave Grimmauld Place after the incident. > How did you feel about the location while they are there? > For instance, is it a safe refuge, Harry's real home, and > positively nostalgic of former times there, or merely an > expedient and sometimes unpleasant one at that? > bboyminn: I absolutely predicted that Harry would go back to the Black House and make it his temporary headquarters. I don't think Harry was feeling all that nostalgic though. I'm sure there is an element of that, but I'm sure the house was more a load of painful memories about Sirius. It was a moderately safe refuge, and really the only refuge they had, but I don't think Harry views it as a home yet. Perhaps after the war, he may have relocated there and it would have them gradually grown to feel like a home. Even more so after Ginny joined him, and once the kids came along, he would have certainly seen it as a home. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jan 22 01:54:48 2008 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:54:48 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180827 > 8. Did you find anything particularly interesting > about how the trio actually physically got into the > Ministry building? houyhnhnm: Ministry employees flushing themselves into work was so funny it almost redeemed the book for me. I've been there so many times. It's such a perfect metaphor. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 01:56:05 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:56:05 -0000 Subject: the mind link / Diary!Tom / wizard divorce / Draco / the Prince's book / In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180828 > Catlady: > > Snape would have made it happen. I have faith in Snape's abilities. > Potioncat: > Snape didn't hear the offer. It isn't likely Draco would have had > reason to tell Snape. But, if Snape somehow learned of Draco's > interest I agree, he would try to make it happen-- all the while > appearing not to-- but that still leaves the question: Who would they > go to? zgirnius: First, I note that there is at least one early conversation between Albus and Severus regarding Draco, his mission, and what is to be done, which is not in canon. In the Ring Curse scene, Albus already knows that Draco is supposed to kill him. While it is possible he learned of this himself, somehow, I think it is far more likely he learned it from Snape, who also knows about it and believes Vodlemrot wants him to do it (as he tells Cissy). So, Albus and Snape have previously discussed what they would do about this problem, and it is possible, anyway, that Snape knew from that conversation, that Albus was going to make that offer. As to where he would take them - it's not too hard to hide someone, if you can cast the Fidelius Charm. > Potioncat: > I'd still like a good explanation for the appeal of DEs to Severus. > The closest I can see, is that in school he doesn't see any > difference between what Gryffindors do and what Slytherins do. I > don't see how he could have loved Lily the way we know he does, and > not have been worried about her much sooner. zgirnius: There was a big difference between what Slytherins and Gryffindors do. Gryffindors make fun of him before he even has a chance to get to know them, and Slytherins accept him and give him a chance to fit in. ((James and Sirius on the train, and Lucius after the Sorting). And it turned out that what it took to fit in, was mouthing stuff he may have already heard from family about Muggleborns, and his skills in Dark Arts, which to a kid who has never been accepted as part of anything, would be pretty meaningful. Sure, he could have chosen Lily and dumped his friends when she started complaining about them (as we see her doing in one memory), becoming an outast again in the process, but it's not too surprising that he hoped he could have both her and his Slytherin buddies. Then came the worst memory and the break up scene, which I presume he took to be final (if not, from the lack of later memories with Lily, I would presume whatever other efforts he may have made thereafter to reconcile also fell flat). I think at that point he decided to take the advice of a contingent of HP fans and get over her. Hang with the friends that didn't dump him, and devote his attention to his other interests. After all, his other option was highly unattractive - dump his friends, and hope that after a while Lily was so impressed with the change that she would condescend to be friends with him again, a risky proposition at best. Only getting over her didn't work out. He was Death Eating merrily along, blithely disregarding any indication he might have had that she was in danger from his fellows (and, he might not have been paying attention, so there might not have been much *to* disregard), when he found out he personally was responsible for exciting Voldemort's interest in her family. He found he could no longer tell himself he did not care what happened to Lily, and we know what happened next. That's how I understand the situation, anyway. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 01:58:14 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:58:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180829 > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, > Chapter Twelve, Magic Is Might > > Discussion Questions > > 1. Were you surprised that the trio were apparating to Grimmauld Place on the top outside step and why? Carol responds: I can't remember, to be honest. I suppose that it makes sense to Apparate in an Invisibility Cloak and since they can't Apparate and disapparate into/out of the house itself, the top step is the next best place. Presumably, having the door open doesn't reveal the house itself, which is still invisible to those who aren't in on the secret. Not muc else to say except that I'm wondering how Lupin escaped being seen if the DEs were already watching the house and he didn't have an Invisibility Cloak. Maybe I'm forgetting something? > > 2. Harry says if Umbridge opened the locket it would make no difference, since she was so evil to start with; however she did wear it awhile. Could its influence possibly have made her even more malevolent than in the past? Carol responds: It certainly didn't affect her in the same way it affected HRH, especially Ron (making them depressed and angry). Evidently, it sensed a kindred spirit. Possibly, it increased her self-confidence or intensified her pro-Voldemort sympathies. I'm torn as to whether she really believed that Voldemort wasn't back; she seems to have shifted her allegiance from Fudge's Ministry to Voldemort's without blinking an eye, but she was always, IMO, out for herself. Thr switch from punishing students with a blood-letting quill for telling "lies" to distributing pink pamphlets full of lies herself and taking pleasure in robbing Muggle-borns of their wands seems only a matter of degree, with a change to a leader whose ideology matches her own more closely than Fudge did. I don't think she's more evil or more malevolent as a result of the Horcrux. Rather, I think the new regime gave her more scope for her cruelty and lust for power. The locket was merely an expensive trinket which she could claim bolstered her link to the pure-blood Selwyns. There may or may not have been a mutual attraction between it and her, but I don't think it changed her in any fundamental way. > > 3. Did you even think before we see the tidy kitchen that Kreacher's transformation and efforts to please would or could be so dramatic? Carol: Definitely not although I was pretty sure that he could have appeared in a clean tea towel rather than a filthy rag had he been ordered to do so. (That would have been my first order to him had I been his master, with no choice in the matter.) I still wonder where he got food, given that the best Hermione could manage was inadequately transfigured moldy bread. > > 4. We find out Snape is the new Headmaster at Hogwarts. Who else did you think might take this place? Perhaps as Deputy Headmistress in the past it could have been McGonagall? Carol: Before DH, I thought that Snape would be on the run, the WW's most wanted man next to Voldemort, and that McGonagall would be headmistress of Hogwarts. Needless to say, I was surprised to find Snape as headmaster, but it wasn't quite the stunner it would have been without the first chapter (Snape as LV's most favored lieutenant) and the fall of the MoM. I would have loved to read more of Snape's acceptance speech. He seems to have handled the ceremonial aspects of the post with surprising aplomb--and, more important, he managed, with only two unavoidable exceptions, to keep on the old, experienced (and in some cases highly competent) anti-Voldemort staff, which ought to have been an indication of his loyalties. Imagine the horror that would have been Hogwarts had, say, Travers or Yaxley or Selwyn been headmaster, bringing in DEs to teach every subject and sending the former teachers to Azkaban. But to return to the question--Snape as headmaster with DEs on his staff never occurred to me. Good one, JKR! > > 5. Since Hermione got Phineas's picture off the wall, has she learned how to defeat the charms that keep other pictures from being removed or was Phineas's portrait not stuck to begin with? Carol responds: I'm pretty sure that Phineas's portrait wasn't stuck up there to begin with or she could never have gotten it down. After all, a Permanent Sticking Charm is exactly that--permanent. And I'm also pretty sure that Dumbledore told Sirius not to take it down. It must have been one of their methods of communication. > > 6. What did you think about upon learning of the plot to infiltrate the Ministry in search of Umbridge and the horcrux? They discuss timing, strategy, and logistics and express their own misgivings. Could or should they have tried to get the horcrux in a less dangerous and complicated manner? > Carol: Should they have done so? Certainly, if they could. Could they have done so? i don't know. I think that the Polyjuice Potion, at least, was necessary, but Stunning spells would have been preferable to Puking Pastilles, IMO. What are two more bodies hidden in an unused theater if you've already got one? But the flaw in the plan is not figuring out what to do once they got inside. > 7. There was concern over the painful scar Voldemort visions, about Voldemort invading Harry's mind. Why didn't Voldemort ever try to invade Harry's mind? Did the fact that Harry had a scar and that Voldemort presumably did not have anything to do with this? Carol: He did try to invade Harry's mind by planting visions in it, and he must have had some indication of how Harry was reacting or he wouldn't have known that his vision had succeeded (or the Prophecy orb had been destroyed). I think that if he'd known that Harry's scar was an accidental Horcrux, he could have communicated with the soul bit as he did with Nagini. As it is, he never understood the scar link and consequently didn't exploit it to its fullest, especially after trying and failing to possess Harry. And certainly, he didn't realize the extent to which Harry had access to *his* supposedly private thoughts. > > 8. Did you find anything particularly interesting about how the trio actually physically got into the Ministry building? Carol: Only that they found a use for the Twins' inventions. As I said above, the Polyjuice Potion was pretty much a given. > > 9. They will have to leave Grimmauld Place after the incident. How did you feel about the location while they are there? For instance, is it a safe refuge, Harry's real home, and positively nostalgic of former times there, or merely an expedient and sometimes unpleasant one at that? Carol: Harry's "real home" is Hogwarts. 12 GP has no particularly good memories associated with it and a lot of bad ones. Still, I was surprised that they slept on the floor and on on beds. If they didn't want to use the room with Phineas's portrait, why not the one where the Twins had slept? and why wouldn't Hermione use her old room? (Post-DH, with money and safety and a happy House-Elf, it can probably become a happy home.) Carol, still wondering where Kreacher got the ingredients for treacle tarts and other goodies From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 22 02:06:38 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:06:38 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180830 > > Discussion Questions > > > > 1. Were you surprised that the trio were apparating to > > Grimmauld Place on the top outside step and why? > > > > bboyminn: > > Actually, no, it made perfect sense to me. Though I don't > think anything in the previous books established that the > top step was inside the bounds of the Secret Keeper Charm, > it still made sense to me. Potioncat: Lupin established it in the previous chapter. He said he had to be careful to arrive at the top step. Before we had been told that you could look into the window and not see the person under the FC. Although I don't know why the residents of the house couldn't Disaparate from inside the house and Apparate back into the house. DD told us in HBP that it was custom not to do so when going to another wizard's house. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jan 22 02:11:57 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:11:57 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180831 > > Magpie: > > I don't see why it's so amazing. It's a fictional world full of > > holes. The author has created House Elves, creatures that conform > to > > a lot of common pro-slavery arguments. I don't see why I should > have > > to pretend that I see the freedom of House Elves as impossible > when > > canon doesn't really prove that--even though that's not something > I > > care about one way or the other. > > > Alla: > > It is amazing to me because this way the other side can never score > a single point in this argument. Magpie: I think you've got all the points, actually, according to canon. What I get from canon is that Harry et al. would love for House Elves to be free and happy, but they can't be, because they want to be slaves. Harry and his friends didn't create this system, they didn't put any enchantment on House Elves. Harry didn't even want to own one, he just fell into his lap. But now that he's got him he'll use him, especially after Kreacher becomes really happy to serve Harry. Harry would offer him freedom if he wanted it (as long as it wouldn't conflict with anything important for Harry as it did in HBP), and when he gives him orders against Kreacher's will it's only for the greater good. So Harry has no reason to be uncomfortable at being the master of this person Kreacher. I'm not disagreeing with any of that as being what's going on in canon. I think that's the very argument being made in canon. I just also think that argument adds up to being ultimately okay with slavery for House Elves since I don't believe "they like it" changes the fact that they're owned and therefore slaves. It is what it is, so it's not like anybody can prove whether they could come up with something else that would eventually work. The solution canon seems to promote itself is that House Elves remain slaves, but there's a responsibility for good people to want them to be treated somewhat well by their masters. The idea that elves would actually be *free* as a species is dismissed when they're offered freedom and they refuse. If I were actually in the society I think there are very good reasons for looking for ways they could be freed rather than listing the reasons they shouldn't be and being happy with that. But this society doesn't exist so it doesn't really matter. Alla: > Just as here, if one cannot offer any solution other than status > quo, doesn't it mean that status quo is better for all parties > involved? Magpie: Not necessarily. The status quo is always the most obvious solution because it's the status quo. If owning other persons is acceptable then there's no reason to change that aspect of the status quo. > > Magpie: > > I'm describing the situation how I see it. I just said > that 'slavery > > is bad' is an opinion. House elves being slaves is not an opinion, > > that's canon. They're owned. I don't think it's slavery because > > it "looks like" human slavery, I think it's slavery because > slavery > > means being owned by another person and being subject to their > will. > > There's plenty of ways it *doesn't* look like human slavery, but > that > > doesn't make it not slavery. > > > Alla: > > I really do not know what to say except to say again that to me > being owned and being subject to their will is an incomplete > definition of slavery. Magpie: What is your definition of slavery then besides being owned and being subject to the will of your owner? Because in my experience that's been the definition for slavery throughout history. It seems unfair to say "and you also have to be miserable and have another situation you'd like better" especially since even when we have House Elves who don't like their situation and do have one they'd like better, they're still stuck with the one they have, just like slaves are. > Magpie: > House Elf nature just makes people have > > different reactions to the idea of them being enslaved. Slaves > being > > happy or wanting to be slaves has never had any bearing on their > > being slaves. > > Alla: > > But it does in mine. Magpie: So in your view Uncle Tom and Jim from Huckleberry Finn weren't slaves as long as they loved their masters? Was Kreacher a slave until he decided he was happy with Harry as his master (Harry gave him orders even when Kreacher decidedly didn't want to be owned by him) because he (Kreacher) approves in general of the status House Elves have now? To me that just goes back to why it sucks being a slave. And I think that's the reason Harry won't be burying Kreacher under a headstone that says FREE ELF. It seems like that argument applies just as easily to human slaves too--if your slaves think their proper place is as slaves and are afraid of being cast out. > > Magpie: > > I'd have to make stuff up and speculate outside of canon to come > up > > with something so I don't know how helpful that would be. That's > why > > I don't accept the idea that canon has in any way proved that it's > > just impossible and there's nothing to be done, or assume that all > > the stuff people speculate about on that side is true. > > Alla: > > How canon did not prove that it is not possible to free house elves > if they do not want to be free? Magpie: Without much effort made at freeing house elves I don't see why I'd think it was proved impossible. Though as I said I think canon gives us plenty of reason to dismiss the idea as unrealistic and so embrace the situation they have now. The idea that this also makes them not slaves makes it for me more disturbing, giving the Wizards even more power. Since I don't see Elves being happy (sometimes) in their situation as making them any less slaves, it just seems like they're living the dream where all the 19th century pro-slavery arguments are true and then one better. It used to be arguments about how slavery was good for slaves proved that slavery was a good thing. Now that slavery is in itself repulsive, it's no longer slavery. Slaveowners don't even have to be bothered by the word. So to me it seems like everything in the book says that the goal is to have elves enslaved by good masters, with Harry being an example of a good master--an exceptionally good master since he has once freed a slave who wanted it. If I were living in a society with slaves I think I'd see instructions on how to be a good master in the series, not the message that slavery was wrong. -m From catlady at wicca.net Tue Jan 22 04:36:12 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:36:12 -0000 Subject: House Elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180832 This is a reply to Carol's with Goddlefrood's and my Carol: << Well, yes. But eliminating the compulsion to punish themselves, which I agree is a problem (the chief concern of Hermione in DH), isn't freedom from what a_svirn and Magpie are calling "slavery." >> Yes. Immediately improving the condition of House Elves is the short term point 1 (short term: ordering them not to punish themselves while longer term: searching for more thorough cures) and point 2 (outlawing abuse of House Elves). Ending slavery starts with point 3. Catlady then: << 2.5) House Elves taken away from egregiously abusive employers would feel the same as children taken away from egregiously abusive parents -- that they are the ones being punished, not the masters/parents. This is a bad thing, which WSPCHE should have a rehabilitation (brainwashing and re-employment) program to help displaced House Elves with. >> Carol: << I don't understand what you're saying here, or what WSPCHE is. >> Catlady then: << SPEW should have been [named] WSPCHE, Wizarding Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to House Elves. >> Catlady now: I was thinking of the RSPCA and other Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the RSPCC and other Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. These groups started as social activists, trying to get the public to care about animals/children while trying to get the individuals in control of animals/children to treat them okay. Once they had gotten the public to care, they successfully lobbied for laws against cruelty to animals and cruelty to children. Then they had a role in enforcement of those laws (SPCCs have handed that role over to government Departments of Children and Family Services). (At the beginning, most of the animals were work animals, with cart horses being especially visible victims. Now most of them are pets.) Penalties for people mistreating their animals or children range from being required to take a parenting class/pet care class, to paying a fine, to having the child or animal taken into protection (aka taken away from the parent/owner), to prison time. I therefore assume that legal penalties for wizards mistreating their House Elves will range the same, from taking a class to imprisonment, including having the abused House Elf taken into protection (maybe only when it is considered to be in immediate danger of being killed). I believe it is documented that children taken away from abusive parents often believe that it is they who did wrong and are being punished, rather than that the abusive adult did wrong. They often want to go home to Mommy even if the foster home is a decent place (and home wasn't). Even if this is not true of abused children, don't you think it would be true of most abused House Elves? Dobby would have been glad to have been taken away from the Malfoys, but would Winky have been glad to have been taken away from the Crouches even if Mr Crouch had ordered her to iron her mouth for talking back? So WSPCHE should have a re-employment program for those Dobbies, and a rehabilitation program for those Winkies rather than just dumping her into new employment with her broken heart and her drinking problem. Rehabilitation means something like brainwashing her into believing that those no-good Crouches never were worthy of her and her foremothers. Maybe pep talks about she'll find better wizards to care for. Telling her she should conceal her broken heart so other House Elves don't despise her. Catlady before: << 3) Freedom to leave an unwanted employer and seek another. >> Catlady now: That is when ending slavery begins. Goddlefrood: << they might become mischievous nuisances if annoyed (snip). On the other hand, it might prove impossible to get rid of a troublesome hob" >> Catlady before: << Of course, it's only fair that the employer would have the right to sack an unwanted House Elf and seek another. >> Catlady now: And prosecute him for trepass if he won't leave, and get a restraining order against him (like Olive Hornby did against Moaning Myrtle). Catlady before: << To make sure that both House Elves and wizards know their rights and duties, a law that both must sign an employment contract. Yes, the law intrudes between House Elves and wizards who have lived together happily for decades, forcing them to sign some stupid contract. >> Carol: << Are you for or against the "stupid contract"? Are you advocating more bureaucracy (just what the WWW needs!) or ridiculing the idea? >> Catlady now: I'm in favor of the stupid contract and the additional bureaucracy, because I can't think how else word could be gotten to all House Elves that they are now free to leave if they want to, and have assistance to find a new employer, Even with the contract, it would be terribly difficult to explain it to the House Elves (as per the example conversation you, Carol, posted in ) Even when they understood it, very few would do it. Goddlefrood: << Should the elves be freed en masse, and there is no indication that they would be in the books, then I don't think they would actually have much of a change in their circumstances. They would undoubtedly continue to work as domestic servants for witches and wizards. >> Catlady now: Exactly. Carol in : << If they were freed, they'd have clothes rather than tea towels (marking them in the eyes of other House-Elves as fired and disgraced). >> Catlady now: All the House Elves in Britain would have been freed, so none of them would be in a position to sneer at any of the others. Carol in : << Just how freed Elves would choose their masters is beyond me. Are they supposed to wander the WW until they find a family that they like, meantime living without work or shelter and somehow grubbing for food? >> Catlady then: << 3.5) Can we rely on the free market to spontaneously generate a House Elf employment agency? An 'Elves Seeking Houses' section of classified ads in Witch Weekly? A particular bulletin board in Hogsmead where wizards post House Elf Wanted notices? >> Catlady now: Classified ads and bulletin boards, for-profit employment agencies and non-profit employment agencies (Ministry: office of House Elf relocation, WSPCHE re-employment program) are ways for House Elves to find new masters without wandering the country knocking on random doors. (Altho' OoP!Kreachy could have skipped all that and just gone to Narcissa.) I'm sure there would be more wizards seeking House Elves than House Elves seeking wizards; remember Ron saying that Mrs Weasley had always wanted a House Elf to help with the ironing? I sure would love to hire a House Elf. The only problem is stated by Ron, that you'll never find a House Elf at The Burrow, because they only like big mansions and castles. So some House Elves might have to swallow their pride and work in a smaller house or flat. I think Dobby must have sought work only in big, rich houses that already had House Elves, or the inhabitants wouldn't have been so haughty about refusing to pay him. Carol: << Not unless you want to make House-Elves as dependent on money as humans, essentially turning them into us. >> Goddlefrood: << Whether they were paid or not would depend on the individual elf. Dobby's being paid in GoF was repugnant to most of the elves >> Catlady now: It is possible that the employment contracts provide no pay nor time off nor health care to the House Elf, only room and board. And maybe a promise to keep the Elf even when he's too old and feeble to work. Really, keeping a House Elf seems even less expensive than keeping a cat, so why would I fire the poor old guy? I mean, when my cats get very old, if they're not suffering, I don't have them euthanized just because of incontinence and constantly cleaning the carpet and the blankets after them. Whether House Elves need pay, time off, health care, old age pensions is something that WSPCHE will have to study once the basic idea that there must be a contract is accepted. Maybe they need no involvement in the money economy unless they specially ask for it. Carol: << Somehow, I don't think that more Wizarding laws and more bureaucracy are what a_svirn has in mind. I think it's more like self-rule for House-Elves, whether they want it or not. As they obviously don't, or they'd have picked up those hats that Hermione placed in the Gryffindor Common Room. >> If someday there are some House Elves who want self-rule, I think they should be allowed to find or buy their own home or town and do it. I don't know whether such House Elves will turn up in the future. << So wizards should impose their own values onto House-Elves, deciding what's right for them and ignoring their own wishes so they'll be just like us. Sounds like cultural imperialism to me, assuming that human culture and values (specifically, those of the WW) are superior to House-Elves values, as if House-Elves are incapable of deciding what they want (which is, clearly, domestic service to Wizards). How that's different from nineteenth-century Christian missionaries saving cannibals from their own culture by converting and educating them is unclear to me. The Wizards are deciding what's right for the Elves ("freedom") and imposing it on them. (You *will* wear clothes and earn wages because that's the *right* way to do things. And if Elves would rather wear tea towels and work for praise from a master they respect, well, the Elves must be wrong.) Carol, who is all for an end to self-punishment and an end to abuse by Wizards, but thinks that, otherwise, the system works fine as it is, for all concerned >> Catlady now: In the wizarding world, there will surely be sincere and good-hearted people making exactly those arguments, and they might win the elections. And I, not being a_svirn, would not care too much which side won that election. But, most certainly, cultural imperialism is a tough problem. I'm trying to work out a compromise, with House Elves free to live their own way if they want to, with service, tea towels and praise, but freedom to live another way if they choose. My law wouldn't require they wear clothes if polling and focus groups show they'll accept freedom without clothes. My law might not require they accept pay; depending on the findings of WSPCHE's study, their pay can go straight from the employer to an escrow account. Several people have suggested that House Elves are more like dogs (working dogs, of course) who can talk than like any kind of human. Guide dogs and service dogs don't get paid, don't get time off (except to be taken to the groomer shop for a bath, which most non-working dogs I've known Do Not Want), and don't choose their masters. So when we Muggles genetically engineer dogs to speak intelligently, we may have this same problem. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 09:20:35 2008 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:20:35 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180834 Discussion Questions > > 1. Were you surprised that the trio were apparating to Grimmauld > Place on the top outside step and why? I was not surprised, frightened for them...but not surprised...I always thought that there would be latent protection...via sirius...can't you just imagine Sirius casting said spell....." those who know not love can never enter"....makes sense given moody's additional protections and how snape evaded them.. > > 2. Harry says if Umbridge opened the locket it would make no > difference, since she was so evil to start with; however she did wear it awhile. Could its influence possibly have made her even more malevolent than in the past? I agree with Harry...the locket's influence didn't make her more malevolent...that was always there within her... the locket inspires order and control..aspects the trio never embraced...but Dumbridge always did...(probably why even though a weight...the locket affected Ron and Harry more deeply and Hermione in a more shallow way.. > > 3. Did you even think before we see the tidy kitchen that Kreacher's transformation and efforts to please would or could be so dramatic? Nope...given Dobby and Winky....we see houself action is typically over the top..Dobby is still loyal to harry despite his clothes....Harry gave KReature something even more emotional...a locket of someone who saved Kreature's life. > > 4. We find out Snape is the new Headmaster at Hogwarts. Who else did you think might take this place? Perhaps as Deputy Headmistress in the past it could have been McGonagall? I had hope for McGonagall....but truly it had to be snape...there was only one place for him to go after occupying the DADA-ship...and still be a member of the Hogwarts staff..(this is probably one of the only plans that DD confided to McConogal with... Also, this is part of DD's genius.. Hogwarts horrible as it was in DH...would have been a great deal worse w/o snape..I and you imagine any other DE in that position?!? The carnage would have been greater that what we saw/experienced on page..and yes I loathe Snape on principle too.. > 5. Since Hermione got Phineas's picture off the wall, has she learned how to defeat the charms that keep other pictures from being removed or was Phineas's portrait not stuck to begin with? NOpe his portriat wasn't stuck.....PHineas made too many compromises during his lifetime...how else could he become a Hogwarts Headmaster?? However the Black did appreciate the prestige he lended to the family name... However, they wouldn't want a portrait talking reason to folks...I think RAB may have had more words with him than anyone else...and Sirius had none.. > > 6. What did you think about upon learning of the plot to infiltrate > the Ministry in search of Umbridge and the horcrux? They discuss > timing, strategy, and logistics and express their own misgivings. > Could or should they have tried to get the horcrux in a less > dangerous and complicated manner? Sure they could have obtained the locket in a less dangerous and complicated manner...however, they have been so isolated for so long...I believe they wanted to go there...even if for a dip in the "world" they'd been isolated from---no train, no Hoggy's...no burrow...they were isolated and these are the sorts of plans isolated folks make... > > 7. There was concern over the painful scar Voldemort visions, about > Voldemort invading Harry's mind. Why didn't Voldemort ever try to > invade Harry's mind? Did the fact that Harry had a scar and that > Voldemort presumably did not have anything to do with this? After the Dept. of Mysteries fiasco...Voldemort's journey into HArry's mind was a complete disaster(he didn't/couldn't kill harry)...Voldy couldn't even kill Aurthur via NAgini in OOP...After these disasters Voldy thought this to be a useless tactic..(perhaps encouraged by Snape?!!?!?as much as I hate him LOL) Voldemort would never have a physical scar...all of Voldy's scars are upon his soul...Hence we know DD has a scar upon his knee!!(now we know the reason for this scar)...Voldemort changed his shape/appearance etc...but no scars are ever apparent.. > 8. Did you find anything particularly interesting about how the trio actually physically got into the Ministry building? I liked to see HErmionie's jouney upon this...this was probably the greatest threshhold she crossed..this was Hermione's venture into the WW on her own terms. All that planning...and plotting...LOL BEWARE the WW..even Voldy's WW! and in the end it was all flushed...a wake up for everyone..even us sad readers...probably one of the best written "reset" buttons.. > > 9. They will have to leave Grimmauld Place after the incident. How > did you feel about the location while they are there? For instance, is it a safe refuge, Harry's real home, and positively nostalgic of former times there, or merely an expedient and sometimes unpleasant one at that? Grimmauld Place became Harry's first home, figuratively and literally..good/bad...doesn't matter...it was still better than Privet drive...and Kreature made it better in the end..Grimmauld Place is one aspect of Harry's life that separated him and Voldemort even more..(we see Voldy in the orphanage, we see him in the Malfoy mansion....we see Harry look on Hogwarts as home....but in dh...we see all of the trio miss grimauld place as a home...esp. Harry and Hermione.. DeeDee (who loved Kreature taking on a warped Molly role! LOL) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 09:21:51 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:21:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180835 --- "potioncat" wrote: > > > > > Discussion Questions > > > > > > 1. Were you surprised that the trio were apparating to > > > Grimmauld Place on the top outside step and why? > > > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > Actually, no, it made perfect sense to me. Though I don't > > think anything in the previous books established that the > > top step was inside the bounds of the Secret Keeper Charm, > > it still made sense to me. > > Potioncat: > Lupin established it in the previous chapter. He said he had > to be careful to arrive at the top step. Before we had been > told that you could look into the window and not see the > person under the FC. > bboyminn: Right, but I meant it really hadn't been established in previous books. When it occurred in this book, regardless of what chapter, I accepted it easily. Regarding looking in the window, that was a very general statement made by Prof. Flitwick when explaining the Fidelius Charm in general. But we have seen that it works very differently on the Black House. In this case, the house itself is hidden from view unless you know the Secret. > Potioncat: > > Although I don't know why the residents of the house couldn't > Disaparate from inside the house and Apparate back into the > house. DD told us in HBP that it was custom not to do so > when going to another wizard's house. > bboyminn: Well, like Hogwarts, but to a lesser extent, all magic houses and businesses are protected from Apparation/Disapparation. What is to stop someone from Apparating into Fortesues and eating all the ice cream in the middle of the night? Well, only the anti-apparation jinxes. Notice, Mr. Weasley does not apparate into or out of his own house. He walks out the front door and apparates. It seems logical he does that because his house, like most magical houses is protected by anti-apparation jinxes. Just a thought. steve/bboyminn From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Jan 22 09:47:54 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:47:54 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180836 Re: children who have been abused by their parents who still love their parents. There are a lot of abused, and sexually abused children. When they are still children, it is true that they mostly still love and want to be with their parents. (Kids whose parents are divorced want them to get back together). But that doesn't mean that children like the abuse or love being mistreated. Children ARE often confused and feel that somehow they are to blame for their parents problems. This is tough stuff...and very painful for all of us even to think about.. But I think it would be a serious mistake to confuse what goes on with abused children's attachment to their parents with slavery. First, the house elves are not of the same species as humans, and that gives us the idea that well, maybe, it IS in their nature to be slaves, and to be truly unhappy were they free. (That makes me incredibly uncomfortable). I hate to bring it up, but there are a lot of racists who don't believe Africans were the same type of humans as Europeans...their brain was smaller, it was in their "nature" to be subservient, they couldn't govern themselves or aspire to "higher" pursuits. Unfortunately, we will hear a lot of stuff about the happy darkie singing songs while laboring in the fields. There is a lot of oppressor bullcrap in these ideas. Sure, there is internalized oppression where the slaves (or the people being oppressed) think deep down that the dominant class are better than they are..but that's because of what the oppressor class has to make everyone believe so that they can still be slaveowners, and benefit economically from the labor of slaves. (and got their sexual needs met, and their physical needs met, and they didn't have to cook meals, etc.) In fact, if you take a careful look at U.S. history during the time that slavery was still legal, there were CONSTANT attempts at escape...CONSTANT bids for freedom..NUMEROUS slave rebellions....it took quite a lot of terrorism, lynchings/murders, torture, rape, etc. to keep most of the slaves under control. This really contradicts the ideas that all slaves -- or even most slaves -- were happy in their slavery and wanted to remain slaves. Re: enlightened masters. Yes, some people were disgusted by slavery and refused to own slaves. Others freed their slaves. Some (like some of our early presidents) did not. Some were reasonably kind, didn't break families apart by selling some, allowed slaves to work for their freedom, taught slaves to read, only raped a few of the slaves, etc. Susan From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 10:30:31 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:30:31 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180838 > > Alla: > > > > I really do not know what to say except to say again that to me > > being owned and being subject to their will is an incomplete > > definition of slavery. > > Magpie: > What is your definition of slavery then besides being owned and being > subject to the will of your owner? Because in my experience that's > been the definition for slavery throughout history. a_svirn: Yes, and "I really don't know what to say, except that I don't think so", isn't really enough. If you say that in your opinion "the fruit of the Egg-plant, Solanum esculentum, resembling a goose's egg in size and shape, and usually of purple colour" does not describe aubergine completely in your opinion, you'd have to come up with a reason why this description is inadequate. In particular, you'd have to find some other fruit that shares all these characteristics with aubergine, without actually being an aubergine. When you say that this definition of slavery is incomplete, you imply that it is possible to owned and be subject to other people' will without being a slave. I'd really like to know how this state is called, however. > > Magpie: > So in your view Uncle Tom and Jim from Huckleberry Finn weren't > slaves as long as they loved their masters? Was Kreacher a slave > until he decided he was happy with Harry as his master (Harry gave > him orders even when Kreacher decidedly didn't want to be owned by > him) because he (Kreacher) approves in general of the status House > Elves have now? a_svirn: And let us not also forget that Kreacher, as Hermione pointed out, does not think in general terms. So it really boils down to whether he is happy being owned or not. Which means that he was a slave in OotP and HBP, but wasn't by the end of HBP. Which in turn means, that Sirius lived and died a slave-owner, while his mother was not a slave- owner. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 10:38:02 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:38:02 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180839 > > 6. What did you think about upon learning of the plot to infiltrate > the Ministry in search of Umbridge and the horcrux? They discuss > timing, strategy, and logistics and express their own misgivings. > Could or should they have tried to get the horcrux in a less dangerous > and complicated manner? > > > Carol: > Should they have done so? Certainly, if they could. Could they have > done so? i don't know. a_svirn: Of course they could. They could find out where Dolores Umbridge lives and perform a discreet bit of B&E. Surely it would have been less risky than raiding the Ministry. > Carol, still wondering where Kreacher got the ingredients for treacle > tarts and other goodies a_svirn: Perhaps he was better at transfiguration than Hermione? From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 10:40:54 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:40:54 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180840 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > > 6. What did you think about upon learning of the plot to > infiltrate > > the Ministry in search of Umbridge and the horcrux? They discuss > > timing, strategy, and logistics and express their own misgivings. > > Could or should they have tried to get the horcrux in a less > dangerous > > and complicated manner? > > > > > Carol: > > Should they have done so? Certainly, if they could. Could they have > > done so? i don't know. > > a_svirn: > Of course they could. They could find out where Dolores Umbridge > lives and perform a discreet bit of B&E. Surely it would have been > less risky than raiding the Ministry. > Oh, better yet, Harry could send Kreacher to kidnap her, like he did with Fletcher. This way it would have been completely risk-free. a_svirn From afn01288 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 12:26:01 2008 From: afn01288 at yahoo.com (afn01288) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:26:01 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180841 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > > > > 6. What did you think about upon learning of the plot to > > infiltrate > > > the Ministry in search of Umbridge and the horcrux? They discuss > > > timing, strategy, and logistics and express their own misgivings. > > > Could or should they have tried to get the horcrux in a less > > dangerous > > > and complicated manner? > > > > > > > Carol: > > > Should they have done so? Certainly, if they could. Could they > have > > > done so? i don't know. > > > > a_svirn: > > Of course they could. They could find out where Dolores Umbridge > > lives and perform a discreet bit of B&E. Surely it would have been > > less risky than raiding the Ministry. > > > > Oh, better yet, Harry could send Kreacher to kidnap her, like he did > with Fletcher. This way it would have been completely risk-free. > a_svirn > afn: It was pretty reckless, but they are teenagers. Plus it added a great deal of excitement to the plot, especially going on into Ch. 13 From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 22 13:23:51 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:23:51 -0000 Subject: Snape (was Re: the mind link / Diary!Tom / wizard divorce / Draco / In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180842 > > zgirnius: snip > > So, Albus and Snape have previously discussed what they would do > about this problem, and it is possible, anyway, that Snape knew from > that conversation, that Albus was going to make that offer. As to > where he would take them - it's not too hard to hide someone, if you > can cast the Fidelius Charm. Potioncat: That works. Except that would put even more on Snape's shoulders. I suppose DD would think he's up to it. > > > zgirnius: > There was a big difference between what Slytherins and Gryffindors > do. Gryffindors make fun of him before he even has a chance to get to > know them, and Slytherins accept him and give him a chance to fit in. > ((James and Sirius on the train, and Lucius after the Sorting). And > it turned out that what it took to fit in, was mouthing stuff he may > have already heard from family about Muggleborns, and his skills in > Dark Arts, which to a kid who has never been accepted as part of > anything, would be pretty meaningful. Potioncat: He did fit in well with the Slytherins. They seemed to like him well enough. And I believe he did not see any difference between the magic they were doing, and the magic James was doing. Zgirnius > Only getting over her didn't work out. He was Death Eating merrily > along, blithely disregarding any indication he might have had that > she was in danger from his fellows (and, he might not have been > paying attention, so there might not have been much *to* disregard), > when he found out he personally was responsible for exciting > Voldemort's interest in her family. He found he could no longer tell > himself he did not care what happened to Lily, and we know what > happened next. > > That's how I understand the situation, anyway. Potioncat: Hmmm---thier friendship ended at 16, although they had two more years of school. They may have spent a lot of time avoiding each other. After graduation, she became a full-time Order member, but that may not have been common knowledge. Unless he was stalking her, he might not know. We know that Regulus joined the DEs without really knowing what sorts of things LV would do. It could be that Severus did too. I just can't understand how he could join an organization that had as part of its beliefs that Muggleborns were mud. Unless of course, he had a bit of resentment toward Lily---and wasn't thinking of how severe the anti- Muggleborns were willing to go. Here I'm talking about when Severus first joined the DEs. Ok, that sort of starts making sense to me. So, what was Severus doing that not even Sirius knew he was a DE? Do we think DD knew before the meeting on the hill? From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 22 13:46:55 2008 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:46:55 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180843 Magpie: > House elves being slaves is not an opinion, that's canon. They're > owned. I don't think it's slavery because it "looks like" human > slavery, I think it's slavery because slavery means being owned by > another person and being subject to their will. SSSusan: And what of those who WERE offered their freedom and declined? How can they then still be considered *owned* by another and classified as slaves? What about all the house elves who appeared in the Gryffindor common room to clean and were confronted with clothing they could have taken in order to be instantly freed, but did NOT? They, then, have made a *choice* to serve and are no longer slaves. IMHO, of course. Magpie: > House Elf nature just makes people have different reactions to the > idea of them being enslaved. Slaves being happy or wanting to be > slaves has never had any bearing on their being slaves. SSSusan: Again, I see a significant difference. The human slaves were not given a choice for freedom that they freely elected to disregard. The house elves at Hogwarts each ELECTED to reject the offer of freedom even with Dobby there as an example of a free elf. I don't see how, at least in the case of all those Hogwarts elves, that is not a clear difference from human slavery. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 14:01:59 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:01:59 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180844 a_svirn: > When you say that this definition of slavery is incomplete, you imply > that it is possible to owned and be subject to other people' will > without being a slave. I'd really like to know how this state is > called, however. Alla: NO, I did not say so. I said so many many many times during this thread that in *our culture* it is called slavery. From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Tue Jan 22 11:14:54 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:14:54 -0000 Subject: Hermione and ? SHIP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180845 When I started reading the Harry Potter series I was convinced that Harry would end up with Hermione. This conviction stayed with me until Goblet of Fire when I began to get a sneaking feeling that I was being led the wrong way and that maybe Ron and Hermione would end up together. Well I was correct about that . I was not sure about who Harry would end up with until HBP, then of course I knew it would be Ginny. Jayne From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 14:20:48 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:20:48 -0000 Subject: Hermione and ? SHIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180846 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jayne" wrote: > > When I started reading the Harry Potter series I was convinced that > Harry would end up with Hermione. This conviction stayed with me until > Goblet of Fire when I began to get a sneaking feeling that I was being > led the wrong way and that maybe Ron and Hermione would end up > together. Well I was correct about that . > I was not sure about who Harry would end up with until HBP, then of > course I knew it would be Ginny. > Alla: Welcome to the list :). Personally while I was not sure 100% whom Harry will end up with till HBP, I was never ever in doubt about one thing. I knew that Ron and Hermione will end up together. From the moment they met I was sure that this is what JKR is going for - two sidekicks who are hero's best friends, who provide comic relief by their fights, while they are not standing up by Hero, and who are really going to fall in love with each other. There was not a doubt in my mind. I mean, I was not sure if one or both of them will be killed of course, but if they both survive, I knew they will be together. One of mine very few right predictions really :) Harry, well, I was sure enough that he will end up with Ginny, but I did not have that 100% feeling. I could not exclude the possibility of someone else especially when Luna was introduced. Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 22 14:26:05 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:26:05 -0000 Subject: Headmaster of Hogwarts (was Re: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180847 > > > > 4. We find out Snape is the new Headmaster at Hogwarts. Who else > did you think might take this place? Perhaps as Deputy Headmistress? In the past it could have been McGonagall? > > Doddiemoemoe: > I had hope for McGonagall....but truly it had to be snape...there > was only one place for him to go after occupying the DADA- ship...and > still be a member of the Hogwarts staff..(this is probably one of > the only plans that DD confided to McConogal with... > Also, this is part of DD's genius.. > Hogwarts horrible as it was in DH...would have been a great deal > worse w/o snape..I > and you imagine any other DE in that position?!? > > The carnage would have been greater that what we saw/experienced on > page..and yes I loathe Snape on principle too.. > Potioncat: I expected someone other than McGonagall would be made Head. I thought that possibly Slughorn might be Headmaster. If you asked me who I wanted, that would be different. Having LV take over the MoM, then appoint Snape--I never would have thought of that! But, I always thought he'd be a Headmaster. I had hoped for a happier circumstance in a more distant future. But to Doddie's comment: I don't think McGonagall had any idea that Snape was on her side. Everything that happens and that is said in "The Sacking of Severus Snape" and later in DH, makes it clear (imho) that she despised Snape. If she had suspected or known that he was following DD's plan, she would have let Snape see Harry--even if she had to pretend to dislike Snape. But again, I don't think she was pretending. Many of us were shocked at how little Snape knew. But the truth is, DD told the bare minimum to the fewest possible people. I think this is one of the finer points of JKR's plotting. We see early on how close he keeps information---back in SS/PS he hasn't told McGonagall anything. Most of us thought he had some reason not to trust her. It's only later that we see the secrecy as a part of his personality. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 15:01:09 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:01:09 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180848 > Discussion Questions > > 1. Were you surprised that the trio were apparating to Grimmauld > Place on the top outside step and why? Alla: Not really. Was Grimmauld place protected against apparition and I do not remember? > 2. Harry says if Umbridge opened the locket it would make no > difference, since she was so evil to start with; however she did wear > it awhile. Could its influence possibly have made her even more > malevolent than in the past? Alla: Truly I think the level of her malevolence was already sooo high that it would not matter much. I guess I am with Harry. > 3. Did you even think before we see the tidy kitchen that Kreacher's > transformation and efforts to please would or could be so dramatic? Alla: Probably not, but I hate him too much and his transformation did not impress me too much. I think he has blood of Black brothers on his hands and I really wanted his head among those other elves. > > 4. We find out Snape is the new Headmaster at Hogwarts. Who else did > you think might take this place? Perhaps as Deputy Headmistress in > the past it could have been McGonagall? Alla: I dreaded Snape becoming a Headmaster BUT after the war, you know? I sooo was hoping that Hogwarts kids will never be subjected to him. So when I learned that he was Headmaster already, I sort of had a feeling that he will not last long one way or another. And YAY he did not last long. Did I expect somebody else? Hmmm, I wanted Mcgonagall for sure, but I am not sure if I expected her to be too much. > 5. Since Hermione got Phineas's picture off the wall, has she learned > how to defeat the charms that keep other pictures from being removed > or was Phineas's portrait not stuck to begin with? Alla: I will not be surprised if Dumbledore unstuck the portrait for reasons known to him only. > 7. There was concern over the painful scar Voldemort visions, about > Voldemort invading Harry's mind. Why didn't Voldemort ever try to > invade Harry's mind? Did the fact that Harry had a scar and that > Voldemort presumably did not have anything to do with this? Alla: What do you mean he never did? After OOP I thought he pretty much gave up? Did you mean something different? And I am not sure I understand the last part of the question ? the fact that Voldemort does not have a scar is a reason he did not try to invade Harry's mind? Thanks for the great questions From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 15:36:59 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:36:59 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180849 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > a_svirn: > > > When you say that this definition of slavery is incomplete, you imply > > that it is possible to owned and be subject to other people' will > > without being a slave. I'd really like to know how this state is > > called, however. > > > Alla: > > NO, I did not say so. I said so many many many times during this > thread that in *our culture* it is called slavery. > Carol responds: In support of Alla, the definition of "slave," according to Merriam-Webster, which defines English words as they are used by Americans, some of whose ancestors formerly approved of or even practiced slavery while others actually were enslaved (FWIW, my distant ancestors include a freed slave and his parents, a slave with no last name and her white owner) is "a *person* person held in servitude as the chattel of another." "Person" is defined as "human individual." As Ron reminds Hermione, House-Elves aren't human. As Susan McGee pointed out, many American slaves ran away or rebelled against slavery. Why? Because they were mistreated and/or because they believed in the fundamental right of human beings to be free, even if freedom meant starving to death or working for pitiful wages under harsh conditions. But House-Elves, Dobby excepted, don't want to run away, nor have we ever heard of a House-Elf Rebellion to parallel all the Goblin Rebellions that Professor Binns keeps attempting to drill into the minds of his students. The only time we see the House-Elves up in arms, it's the charge led by Kreacher against the DEs and Voldemort, the bad masters that they don't want in charge of the school. Obviously, like real slaves (human beings constrained to work for a master against their will), House-Elves don't like being mistreated, and the enchantment that keeps them from running away, like the one that forces them to punish themselves if they disobey their masters, ought to be lifted. But few House-Elves consider running away. If Winky is at all typical, and I think she is since she spouts the same sentiments as the Hogwarts House-Elves before she's "freed" (afterwards, she just wants to return to her master), House-Elves generally love their masters and are loyal to them even when they're abused. (Kreacher rejects Sirius because Sirius rejects his mother; his loyalty is to Regulus, the dutiful son, even before Regulus sacrifices his life for him.) IOW, House-elves love serving Wizards. They love housework. They often love their masters, even if, by our standards, the masters are unworthy. Their psychology is not that of human slaves, nor is their nature that of human slaves, because they're not human. Nor are most of them being held against their will, as SSS pointed out. And if a slave is one human being kept in chattel by another, they are not slaves. By all means, the WW should take measures to prevent the abuse of House-Elves. But it would be futile and inhumane to attempt to change their nature. Carol, wishing that Bonky the House-Elf would organize my papers and pay my bills and that he (or she) weren't wholly imaginary From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 15:51:33 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:51:33 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180850 > > 3. Did you even think before we see the tidy kitchen that > Kreacher's transformation and efforts to please would or could be so dramatic? > Alla: > > Probably not, but I hate him too much and his transformation did not impress me too much. I think he has blood of Black brothers on his hands and I really wanted his head among those other elves. > Carol responds: I understand why you think that Kreacher is (partially?) responsible for Sirius Black's death (though I don't agree). But do you also blame him for Regulus's self-sacrifice? Surely, it was Reggie's own decision to return to the cave with Kreacher, drink that terrible potion himself even though he knew what it would do (he would be forced to drink the water and die horribly, killed by Inferi), and it was also his plan, and, indeed, his order to destroy the locket, that saved Kreacher's life by causing him to Disapparate from the cave. It's not as if Kreacher could have saved Regulus or as if he deserted his dying master to save himself. I'd say that Regulus's blood is on *Voledmort's* hands since he set up that horrible trap, including the Inferi, which are subject to his will and have none of their own, even though it was Kreacher, not Regulus, whom Voldemort left to die. The whole set-up was murder waiting to happen. Carol, who was profoundly moved by Kreacher's transformation and his loyalty to the dead Regulus From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 22 16:05:06 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:05:06 -0000 Subject: Scarlett O'Harry was : House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180851 > Magpie: > > House elves being slaves is not an opinion, that's canon. They're > > owned. I don't think it's slavery because it "looks like" human > > slavery, I think it's slavery because slavery means being owned by > > another person and being subject to their will. > > SSSusan: > And what of those who WERE offered their freedom and declined? How > can they then still be considered *owned* by another and classified > as slaves? Pippin: It's not really the definition of slavery that's off here, IMO. It's the definition of "kind master." In order to make this very strained analogy, we've been shoe- horning things into the definition of 'kind master' that would make Miz Scarlett fall down in a faint. Would she offer her slaves freedom for the asking? Would she insist that their masters must keep them even if they break the law or grossly neglect their duties as Winky appeared to have done? Would she think they should be treated with kindness and respect, and protected from punishment, not only when they are obedient but when they are as disloyal, incompetent, dirty, recalcitrant and rude as Kreacher was? Frankly my dear, not a chance. Pippin guiltily fond of the other well-known green-eyed slaveowning protagonist in fiction From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Tue Jan 22 16:13:43 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:13:43 -0000 Subject: Ron's Return Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180852 The part in DH that interests me is where Ron returns to Harry and Hermione in the forest and saves Harry's life when he tries to retrieve the Sword. To me I was surprised that Ron could get the sword as I thought that maybe only Harry would be able to do this. I thought the act of Ron's showed true friendship. I loved Hermione's reaction when they got back to the tent, I thought it was funny.. Jayne From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jan 22 16:32:44 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:32:44 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180853 > Magpie: > > House elves being slaves is not an opinion, that's canon. They're > > owned. I don't think it's slavery because it "looks like" human > > slavery, I think it's slavery because slavery means being owned by > > another person and being subject to their will. > > SSSusan: > And what of those who WERE offered their freedom and declined? How > can they then still be considered *owned* by another and classified > as slaves? What about all the house elves who appeared in the > Gryffindor common room to clean and were confronted with clothing > they could have taken in order to be instantly freed, but did NOT? > They, then, have made a *choice* to serve and are no longer slaves. > IMHO, of course. Magpie: Of course they can still be owned and classified as slaves. This is partly why I started concentrating on the Wizards--because the tendency is to put it all on the House Elves as if they're controlling things, so that it only comes down to the Elf wanting to be owned rather than the Wizard wanting to own. But a person can still be a slave and be owned even if I've offered them freedom. It's right there in the description--if they're declining to be set free or to not be owned then they must still be owned and a slave. I am still owning them. Iow, I don't believe you can own slaves without owning slaves, even though that seems to be what canon is trying to go for. Even if I believe myself to just be acquiescing to the Elves' wishes, I'm doing it by agreeing to own a slave. Just as I would be doing if I were acquiescing to my slave-owning father's demands to not set my inherited slaves free. If the Elf asks to be my slave and I agree, then I have agreed to have him as my slave. The Gryffindor House Elves have chosen to be slaves--the fact that they want to be in that state probably has a great effect on how they experience their situation, but it doesn't change the set up. The owners still have all the power of owners. > Magpie: > > House Elf nature just makes people have different reactions to the > > idea of them being enslaved. Slaves being happy or wanting to be > > slaves has never had any bearing on their being slaves. > > SSSusan: > Again, I see a significant difference. The human slaves were not > given a choice for freedom that they freely elected to disregard. > The house elves at Hogwarts each ELECTED to reject the offer of > freedom even with Dobby there as an example of a free elf. I don't > see how, at least in the case of all those Hogwarts elves, that is > not a clear difference from human slavery. Magpie: Yes, but that doesn't make them not slaves. There were probably plenty of human slaves who rejected trying to run away--did that make them no longer slaves because they chose their slavery over making a break for it? Did any slaves who didn't take part in a rebellion become no longer slaves because they didn't fight for their freedom? I would not be surprised if there were human slaves throughout history who rejected freedom as well because slavery is what they knew and they feared the unknown and the insecurity of suddenly being free. (It certainly didn't make their masters any less masters--the only thing that made the master no longer a master was if the slave was freed.) These things make a difference in how a person relates to being a slave, but it doesn't make the person not a slave. To be not slave they would have to not be owned and subject to the will of their owner. For instance, I'm sure plenty of slaves after the American Civil War continued to serve their masters in the same capacity as they did before. They did not stop being slaves because they chose to remain in their same position, they stopped being slaves because it was no longer legal for them to be owned. Pippin: It's not really the definition of slavery that's off here, IMO. It's the definition of "kind master." Magpie: The definition of "kind master" is a lot more changeable through time than the defintion of "slave" ever has. A slave is a person being held as chattel--and I think house elves most certainly do qualify as persons, they just aren't human persons. Classifying a character like Dobby as an animal--sub-human--to me feels dangerously close to the way Voldemort would see it, and it also dismisses any arguments about respecting House Elves' culture or wishes because animals don't have either, nor do they understand the concept of slave or free. Harry doesn't relate to any of the House Elves in canon as animals. "Kind master" depends on the custom of the country and time they live in. The Blacks--beloved masters of Kreacher--would not be considered kind by Hermione's standards, but they were by Kreacher's and by their own. Hermione also judged Crouch as a bad master where Winky did not. "Kind" is subjective. "Slave" is a more solid description of a person's place. House Elves love serving Wizards and choose to do it in general, but they're also owned by them and subject to their whims even when they *don't* want to serve them. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 17:22:27 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:22:27 -0000 Subject: Ron's Return In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180854 "Jayne" wrote: > > The part in DH that interests me is where Ron returns to Harry and Hermione in the forest and saves Harry's life when he tries to retrieve the Sword. To me I was surprised that Ron could get the sword as I thought that maybe only Harry would be able to do this. I thought the act of Ron's showed true friendship. > I loved Hermione's reaction when they got back to the tent, I thought it was funny.. Carol responds: That's one of my favorite scenes, as well (despite a minor annoyance on my part at the similarity of the locket to the One Ring on its chain and the nagging question of why they had to wear it instead of just stuffing it into a pocket). I loved the way that scene allowed Ron to simultaneously redeem himself after having left the Trio, rescue Harry instead of being rescued himself, and not only retrieve the Sword of Gryffindor under the stipulated conditions of need and valor but (as I've said a few too many times) symbolically destroy his personal demons at the same time he destroyed the Horcrux. (Hermione had already saved Harry in Ron's absence, unfortunately destroying his wand at the same time; I loved having Ron do the honors and get it right). If nothing else, Ron finally got a chance to prove his courage by doing something heroic on his own with no help from anyone but the mysterious Patronus caster (who, of course, is really Snape, which makes the whole scene even more delicious, in my view). Ron's characteristic reaction to Harry (who had brilliantly jumped into the icy pool wearing the Horcrux), "Are--you--*mental*?" and Hermione's reaction to Ron's return added humor to the scene. I also liked Harry's recollection of "their daring, nerve, and chivalry set Gryffindor apart" and his wondering what chivalry has to do with it, a question that's answered when Ron chivalrously rescues him. (And what would James Potter think if he knew that Severus Snape had set up that chivalrous rescue?) Altogether one of the best scenes in the book. Make that one of the best chapters in the book. Carol, wishing that Snape had stayed around to witness the destruction of the Horcrux and wondering what would have happened if he'd had to rescue Harry because Ron didn't show up From aletamosquito at gmail.com Tue Jan 22 17:53:52 2008 From: aletamosquito at gmail.com (Aleta Turner) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:53:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron's Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3591e0870801220953h33c5af1el3e6dcbd50fdf4d6f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180855 On Jan 22, 2008 11:13 AM, Jayne wrote: > "The part in DH that interests me is where Ron returns to Harry and > Hermione in the forest and saves Harry's life when he tries to > retrieve the Sword." > I can't help but wonder how things would have gone if Harry & Hermione hadn't avoided talking about Ron, thereby making it possible for him to use the Deluminator sooner and return to them. (Hi everyone! This is my first post here. I hope I've got it right!) :) Aleta ~~~~~~~~ "Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could. Tomorrow is a new day; begin it well and serenely and with too high a spirit to be encumbered with your old nonsense." --Ralph Waldo Emerson [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 22 18:02:36 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:02:36 -0000 Subject: Ron's Return In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180856 > > Carol responds: Carol, wishing that Snape had stayed around to witness the destruction > of the Horcrux and wondering what would have happened if he'd had to > rescue Harry because Ron didn't show up Potioncat: I thought he knew Ron was there and that was the need and valor part-- that Snape set it up for Ron, not for Harry. Well, for Harry and Ron. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 22 18:17:47 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:17:47 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180857 > > SSSusan wrote: > > And what of those who WERE offered their freedom and declined? > How > > can they then still be considered *owned* by another and > classified > > as slaves? Potioncat: Oh, I will be so happy when this thread is done. No offense, you understand, but every time I see the "Re House elves..." subject line, I hear music, while visions of enchanted household objects dance around my head. Hmm. This may be the answer, from the foremost expert on Magic, Disney: Life is so unnerving For a servat who's not serving He's not whole without a soul to wait upon Ah, those good old days when we were useful Suddenly those good old days are gone Ten years we've been rusting Needing so much more than dusting Needing exercise, a chance to use our skills Most days we just lay around the castle Flabby, fat and lazy You walked in and oops-a-daisy! Potioncat ducking as she clicks send. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 18:44:16 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:44:16 -0000 Subject: Ron's Return In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180858 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Carol responds: > > Carol, wondering what would have happened if he'd had to > > rescue Harry because Ron didn't show up > potioncat wrote: > I thought he knew Ron was there and that was the need and valor part-- > that Snape set it up for Ron, not for Harry. Well, for Harry and Ron. zanooda: I also think Snape knew Ron was there, but what if Hermione didn't say Ron's name, as someone suggested? Ron would have been still at Shell Cottage, not knowing where to find Harry and Hermione, with no one around to save Harry except Snape. I think in this case Snape would have rescued Harry himself (it was too early for the boy to die ), but I don't see it as a big problem, because Snape could have easily disapparated before Harry had realized it was him. Harry was almost unconscious when Ron pulled him out of the pool and couldn't see who saved him at first - the same thing could have happened if it was Snape who got him out. zanooda, who is not sure if she managed to use the correct tenses here, but hopes that others understand what she wants to say ... :-) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 22 19:01:53 2008 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:01:53 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180859 Magpie: > Of course they can still be owned and classified as slaves. This is > partly why I started concentrating on the Wizards--because the > tendency is to put it all on the House Elves as if they're > controlling things, so that it only comes down to the Elf wanting > to be owned rather than the Wizard wanting to own. > > But a person can still be a slave and be owned even if I've offered > them freedom. It's right there in the description--if they're > declining to be set free or to not be owned then they must still be > owned and a slave. I am still owning them. SSSusan: Sorry. But to me, once a choice has been made to DECLINE an offer of FULL freedom, I think I'm with Alla -- a different word needs to exist to describe that state. It's not slavery and ownership in my book if the person is electing to stay. Presumably, if I as a witch offer Snorty Elf her freedom and she says, "No, I don't want to be free," and I say, "Are you sure? Don't you want to walk out and be on your own, free to do as you please, to earn money, work for whomever you want?" and Snorty says, "No, I don't, I want to stay here and work for you," then to me, something FUNDAMENTAL changed in the relationship. And **if** Snorty were to come to me in the future and say, "You know? I've been thinking about that offer and I think I'd like to take you up on it... I'll be leaving now," then I would honor that because, once freedom had been offered up (even if refused), I, as "master," would no longer see myself as OWNING Snorty. Rather, I would see that something changed in our relationship when I willingly offered her that freedom. Do with that what you will, but it's my take. > > SSSusan: > > Again, I see a significant difference. The human slaves were not > > given a choice for freedom that they freely elected to > > disregard. The house elves at Hogwarts each ELECTED to reject > > the offer of freedom even with Dobby there as an example of a > > free elf. I don't see how, at least in the case of all those > > Hogwarts elves, that is not a clear difference from human slavery. > Magpie: > Yes, but that doesn't make them not slaves. There were probably > plenty of human slaves who rejected trying to run away--did that > make them no longer slaves because they chose their slavery over > making a break for it? SSSusan: A slave choosing not to run away is not the same thing as turning down an offer of legal freedom. The slave owner is not offering freedom to his property in the former; rather, the slave would be electing to do something not only extremely risky but also ILLEGAL in taking that chance. OTOH a house elf choosing to say "no" to an offer of freedom from his owner is a wholly different prospect. The legal owner offers freedom -- a risk-free and LEGAL prospect. When the elf says "no," then again, to me, that changes what that relationship is between them. I'm not going to say anybody else needs to see it the way I do, but I'm saying this is how I see it, and perhaps that's part of why we don't seem to be getting anywhere in finding common ground or convincing one another. Siriusly Snapey Susan From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 19:21:13 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:21:13 -0000 Subject: Snape (was Re: the mind link / Diary!Tom / wizard divorce / Draco / In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180860 > Potioncat: > That works. Except that would put even more on Snape's shoulders. I > suppose DD would think he's up to it. zgirnius: All in a day's work. > Potioncat: > We know that Regulus joined the DEs without really knowing what sorts > of things LV would do. It could be that Severus did too. I just can't > understand how he could join an organization that had as part of its > beliefs that Muggleborns were mud. zgirnius: I don't see why it is necessary to share every belief of an organization one joins, if one has personal reasons for wanting to join. Sure, it's best and all that, but people make decisions every day which are suboptimal, and that one certainly was. Also, it is possible Snape actually shared, or came to share, those beliefs, and viewed Lily as an exception. She was not like the others, she was special, powerful, what have you. There's a man in my family who believes women are less suited than men for a number of professions owing to our more emotional natures, which are more easily swayed by irrational arguments and simply don't grasp abstractions well. After lengthy debating of this subject with me, he has conceded that *I* have no such shortcomings (he would otherwise be in the position of being unable to outreason an inferior creature, , and I am successfully employed in a field for which I 'ought' to be unsuited in his view), but feels that I am 'unfeminine' in this regard. In the same way, it is possible that Snape came to regard Lily as some sort of prodigy of nature, the rare Muggleborn who is as powerful, or more powerful, that most wizards 'of wizarding blood'. (See Slughorn for another possible example of such a view, minus the 'mud'.) And of course, he may not have been thinking in terms of killing off all Muggleborns, or arresting them, or banning them from school and employment outright. > Potioncat: > Do we think DD knew before the meeting on the hill? zgirnius: He knew. His first words to Severus (after reassuring him he was not about to be killed) were, "Well, Severus? What message does Lord Voldemort have for me?" It is possible that Snape revealed his allegiance in whatever communication he sent requesting the meeting in the first place. Another way Albus could have known, that Sirius would not, would be the prophecy. If Snape had done or said something in his escape from thre Hog's Head that aroused suspicion, Albus might have guessed. Or if Voldemort took steps after that event that Dumbledore recognized as being responses to the prophecy - he could only have learned from Snape. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 19:32:30 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:32:30 -0000 Subject: Ron's Return In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180861 > zanooda: > I think in this case Snape would have rescued Harry himself (it was too > early for the boy to die ), but I don't see it as a big problem, > because Snape could have easily disapparated before Harry had realized > it was him. Harry was almost unconscious when Ron pulled him out of the > pool and couldn't see who saved him at first - the same thing could > have happened if it was Snape who got him out. zgirnius: I agree Snape would, without a doubt, have saved him. I think this is why he hung around, to know Harry got the sword safely before he left. But I disagree he could have done so easily without Harry knowing. Dragging a naked person out of ice-cold water and leaving them unconscious on the frozen ground in winter isn't saving their life, it's deciding they should die of hypothermia rather than drowning. He would have had to take steps to dry Harry off and keep him warm - steps which would also have roused him. I suppose he could have Stunned Harry, or something like that, and there might be magic that could keep Harry warm for a time while he recovered from being Stunned as well, but I can't think of it at the moment. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 20:04:06 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:04:06 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180863 > > a_svirn: > > > > > When you say that this definition of slavery is incomplete, you imply > > > that it is possible to owned and be subject to other people' will > > > without being a slave. I'd really like to know how this state is > > > called, however. > > > > > > Alla: > > > > NO, I did not say so. I said so many many many times during this > > thread that in *our culture* it is called slavery. > > > Carol responds: > > In support of Alla, the definition of "slave," according to > Merriam-Webster, which defines English words as they are used by > Americans, some of whose ancestors formerly approved of or even > practiced slavery while others actually were enslaved (FWIW, my > distant ancestors include a freed slave and his parents, a slave with > no last name and her white owner) is "a *person* person held in > servitude as the chattel of another." "Person" is defined as "human > individual." As Ron reminds Hermione, House-Elves aren't human. a_svirn: And my OED gives "human individual" as only one of the meaning of the word "person". The other or, rather, one of the others being "in general philosophical sense: a conscious or rational being". House- elves certainly pass the muster ? they may be not as rational as one would have whished, but they are certainly conscious. Besides, if they aren't persons, then what are they ? animals? They certainly have emotions, values, and identities, personalities. It does not seem to be altogether fair to liken them to cattle. > Carol: > As Susan McGee pointed out, many American slaves ran away or rebelled > against slavery. Why? Because they were mistreated and/or because they > believed in the fundamental right of human beings to be free, even if > freedom meant starving to death or working for pitiful wages under > harsh conditions. > > But House-Elves, Dobby excepted, don't want to run away, nor have we > ever heard of a House-Elf Rebellion to parallel all the Goblin > Rebellions that Professor Binns keeps attempting to drill into the > minds of his students. a_svirn: Except that Kreacher did rebel against his master. And tried to defy another. That's two thirds of our elvish acquaintance. a_svirn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jan 22 20:12:03 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:12:03 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180864 > SSSusan: > Sorry. But to me, once a choice has been made to DECLINE an offer of > FULL freedom, I think I'm with Alla -- a different word needs to > exist to describe that state. It's not slavery and ownership in my > book if the person is electing to stay. Magpie: > > Presumably, if I as a witch offer Snorty Elf her freedom and she > says, "No, I don't want to be free," and I say, "Are you sure? Don't > you want to walk out and be on your own, free to do as you please, to > earn money, work for whomever you want?" and Snorty says, "No, I > don't, I want to stay here and work for you," then to me, something > FUNDAMENTAL changed in the relationship. > And **if** Snorty were to come to me in the future and say, "You > know? I've been thinking about that offer and I think I'd like to > take you up on it... I'll be leaving now," then I would honor that > because, once freedom had been offered up (even if refused), I, > as "master," would no longer see myself as OWNING Snorty. Rather, I > would see that something changed in our relationship when I willingly > offered her that freedom. Magpie: The only fundamental change is the way you say you see yourself. Nothing has changed in Snorty's situation until her freedom is actually granted for real. A word does not exist for owning someone legally and literally but not "seeing yourself" as owning them. If you had said, "Sure Snorty, you can still stay here and work for me. But you will work for me as a Free Elf" then her status would have changed. Harry and Dumbledore are both generally pro-freedom for House Elves, but when they own a slave against his will, they don't free him and give him orders because they can. However they want to see themselves they *are* owners and slave masters know how to use that power when it suits them. Similarly, maybe an elf doesn't feel like or see herself a slave if she's happy in her position. However, if she decided she wanted to leave or not follow an order, she's learn pretty quickly that she was indeed a slave because she's not free to leave or disobey until she's free in reality. Illusionary freedom that's dependent on how the person with the real power feels is worthless--Snorty changing her mind only works if you don't change your mind--maybe you don't think you would change your mind and so keep her enslaved, but you could and you might, especially if what she wanted to do conflicted with your interests, as it did for Harry and Dumbledore. (Or you might die and she'd find herself inherited as property.) A person needs their own legal rights to be protected. You can't depend on the person who has the rights to look out for you. -m From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 21:31:54 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:31:54 -0000 Subject: Ron's Return In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180865 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > I suppose he could have Stunned Harry, or something like that, > and there might be magic that could keep Harry warm for a time > while he recovered from being Stunned as well, but I can't think > of it at the moment. zanooda: Well, I've always wondered if the Stunning spell could wear off all by itself after some time? Take Yaxley, for example. He was in the Atrium 10-15 minutes after Harry stunned him and Umbridge in the court room. Of course, it's always possible that there was someone else down in the dungeons who found and "enervate"(sp?) them, but still ... . And why didn't the Dementors kiss Umbridge and Yaxley when they were unconscious? From ehood at rica.net Tue Jan 22 15:18:10 2008 From: ehood at rica.net (Emily) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:18:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione and ? SHIP References: Message-ID: <017701c85d0d$525a0b50$b40ced48@NexlinkV83723> No: HPFGUIDX 180866 Jayne: When I started reading the Harry Potter series I was convinced that Harry would end up with Hermione. This conviction stayed with me until Goblet of Fire when I began to get a sneaking feeling that I was being led the wrong way and that maybe Ron and Hermione would end up together. Well I was correct about that . I was not sure about who Harry would end up with until HBP, then of course I knew it would be Ginny. Emily: My older daughter and I knew Harry would be with Ginny since the first book and that Ron and Hermione would be together. It just seemed right. My younger daughter thought we were nuts. Emily From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Tue Jan 22 20:55:15 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:55:15 -0000 Subject: Percy 's return to the fold Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180867 Another part of DH I like is when the OP and DDA are in the Room of requirement and Percy comes through the hole from the Hogs Head . I love the humour when Percy says DH Chapter30 Page486 "I was a fool, I was an idiot,I ws a pompous prat,i was a -a" "Ministry -loving, family diowning, power-hungry moron " said Fred. Percy swallowed "Yes I was" His family then accept him back. It's sad then when Percy is telling the minister he resigns and Fred is teasing him about it and dies.You then see the distress of Percy and Ron, which makes the whole episode I mentioned above, ironic. Jayne From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Tue Jan 22 22:50:42 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:50:42 -0000 Subject: Hermione and ? SHIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180868 > Jayne: > > When I started reading the Harry Potter series I was convinced that Harry would end up with Hermione. This conviction stayed with me until Goblet of Fire when I began to get a sneaking feeling that I was being led the wrong way and that maybe Ron and Hermione would end up together. Well I was correct about that. I was not sure about who Harry would end up with until HBP, then of course I knew it would be Ginny. Jayne Tiffany: I thought that Harry & Hermione would be a good match because they're compatible in their SHIPs in the canon, but knew that Ginny would be better for Harry over the long-term. Don't get me wrong, I can easily see Harry & Hermione working out, esp. in SS, but the chemistry & "it factor" wasn't there for them to be right for each other. After GoF I knew that Harry's best match would be Ginny based on what I was reading. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 22:55:13 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:55:13 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapter 1, post DH look Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180869 As some people know I am home these couple weeks with not being allowed much to do, so I figured this would be a perfect time to start postDH reread of the series to see how it all fits together after last book for me. I reread PS once last year, but it was still not quite the same before last book and every time I reread I find something new, so I decided to try. This is not a chapter discussion or anything, it is my own little project, and everybody is welcome to join :) I will just post how some old lines may look anew to me in light of what I know now. I will not always commit to post it to every chapter and I have no idea how much I will commit to books wise, as I said just random musings. Here we go without further ado. The first weird thing that jumped at me today is that at some point of talking all things Potter I sort of stopped counting this chapter as written not from Harry's POV. I mean, it is not like I forgot exactly, but pushed back so to speak. Does it matter that narrator is more trustworthy here? "There was no point in worrying Mrs. Dursley; she always got so upset at any mention of her sister. He didn't blame her ? if he'd had a sister like that but all the same, those people in cloaks" ? PS/SS, p.5, am.ed. Alla: Now when we read Prince's memory I am wondering if Mrs. Dursley getting so upset at her sister meant to foreshadow that something more than just anger is at play here? "Mrs. Dursley sipped her tea through pursed lips. Mr. Dursley wondered whether he dared to tell her he'd heard the name "Potter". He decided he didn't dare" ? p.7 Alla: He decided he did not dare Does it mean what I think it means? Is it already a foreshadowing that Petunia has no problems dictating her will to Vernon as she did in OOP when she insisted that Harry stays? "Albus Dumbledore didn't seem to realize that he had just arrived in a street where everything from his name to his boots was unwelcome" ? p.9 Alla: One cannot help but think about Dumbledore's visit to Dursleys in HBP, but is it also about Petunia's feelings about Dumbledore "not allowing" her to go to Hogwarts? And what about the name and boots? Does it mean simply that the name is too abnormal? Or does it mean something else? "I know you haven't, said Professor Mcgonagall, sounding half exasperated, half admiring. But you're different. Everyone knows you're the only one You-Know- oh all right, Voldemort was frightened of. You flatter me, said Dumbledore calmly. Voldemort had powers I will never have. Only because you're too ? well ? noble to use them "? p.11 Alla: We all know this infamous exchange of course, but when I was rereading it today, I had a thought, well two actually. Minerva manages to fight off her fear and say Voldemort that early in the book. And I was also wondering when Minerva says that only because you are too noble to use them, whether she means what I always thought she meant. I always thought that she is talking about Dumbledore's powers that he is too noble to use. But in the previous sentence Dumbledore is talking about Voldemort's powers. Is it possible that another interpretation of this dialogue is that Dumbledore is able to use something of Voldemort's? Like object? Does that make sense? "It was plain that whatever everyone was saying, she was not going to believe it until Dumbledore told her it was true" ? p.11 -12 Alla: Do we see foreshadowing of blind trust that order members have in Dumbledore already? I mean, we do not know about order members yet obviously, so I should say teachers. " but how in the name of Heaven did Harry survive? We can only guess, said Dumbledore. We may never know" ? p.12 Alla: So does this line means that at this point in time Dumbledore does not know that Harry is a Horcrux? Alla: Well, that's all for now. Please feel free to add what you see in the new light after last book if anything. I will be back with the new installment soon, hehe. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 22 22:56:28 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:56:28 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180870 > > Magpie: > The only fundamental change is the way you say you see yourself. > Nothing has changed in Snorty's situation until her freedom is > actually granted for real. Pippin: No. Something has fundamentally changed if Snorty has the right to her freedom if she wishes it. That's the kind of reform Hermione and Dumbledore would like to see. It's true they don't free Kreacher or allow him to choose another master, but though house elf slavery was exploited to keep him captive, it was not the purpose. No leader would allow valuable secrets to be passed to the enemy in wartime if he could help it, whether the spy was free or unfree, adult or child, human or otherwise. If I gave aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime, or even looked like I might, I'd probably lose my freedom too. Marietta was branded and then obliviated. Kreacher's lucky to have got off with house arrest. I agree that "kind master" is subjective, but the reforms that Dumbledore and Hermione were seeking would not be. If wizards face sanctions for freeing elves against their will or refusing to release them if they wish it, for needlessly endangering their lives or for allowing them to punish themselves, if elves who reach old age or become too sick to work are provided for, it's going to be a very different WW. Even if elves won't take a tin sickle more in compensation than the room and board they already get. Those rights will not free house elves from their enchantments, but it will be clear that they are slaves to their enchantments and their own natures, not to wizardkind. Only then can the narrative of dominance and servility be replaced by one of mutual protection. Kreacher will probably never invoke his rights. But they'd still be meaningful. The right to divorce is not meaningless to me just because I'm happily married and don't foresee using it myself. I don't live in a vacuum any more than Kreacher does. I've never heard of any slave-owning society in real life that allowed those kind of rights or freedoms to its slaves, and I can't imagine any RL slave-owner considering the HP books some kind of pro-slavery apology or tract. There's a word for people who think slaves should be given freedom on demand. It's "abolitionist." Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 22 22:57:07 2008 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:57:07 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180871 SSSusan: > > Sorry. But to me, once a choice has been made to DECLINE an > > offer of FULL freedom, I think I'm with Alla -- a different word > > needs to exist to describe that state. It's not slavery and > > ownership in my book if the person is electing to stay. > > Presumably, if I as a witch offer Snorty Elf her freedom and she > > says, "No, I don't want to be free," and I say, "Are you sure? > > Don't you want to walk out and be on your own, free to do as you > > please, to earn money, work for whomever you want?" and Snorty > > says, "No, I don't, I want to stay here and work for you," then > > to me, something FUNDAMENTAL changed in the relationship. > > > > And **if** Snorty were to come to me in the future and say, "You > > know? I've been thinking about that offer and I think I'd like > > to take you up on it... I'll be leaving now," then I would honor > > that because, once freedom had been offered up (even if refused), > > I, as "master," would no longer see myself as OWNING Snorty. > > Rather, I would see that something changed in our relationship > > when I willingly offered her that freedom. Magpie: > The only fundamental change is the way you say you see yourself. > Nothing has changed in Snorty's situation until her freedom is > actually granted for real. A word does not exist for owning someone > legally and literally but not "seeing yourself" as owning them. SSSusan: That was precisely my point. A word *doesn't* exist, but because the situation in the WW is different in at least one component from the RW, then it would be nice if a different term *did* exist. That's what I said, above. I see your point that nothing about an offer of freedom and a decline of that offer would probably change the relationship in the eyes of the WW law... unless that offer were somehow public and "recorded" (and how likely is that?). But I still do not see how something FUNDAMENTAL about that particular relationship isn't different than human slave and owner in the RW. And it feels like this didn't quite address that difference in the other issue I raised in my last post. You compared a slave electing not to attempt to run away or rebel to the house elves that elected not to choose freedom when offered it. I attempted to point out that the two are not equal situations, since taking the first action (a slave running away) is a risky venture because it isn't legal, whereas taking the second action (an elf accepting freedom) is a fully legal move. I just think this speaks to their being a different level of *something* going on here with elves, when compared to human slavery in the RW. And that difference is what makes me wish there *were* a different word or term. JKR didn't give it to us, so we're probably stuck arguing, at least at some level, semantics. If an owner wants to grant an elf freedom and the elf does not want it, then the owner is screwed. If he keeps the elf, he's allegedly buying into slavery and thinking only of wizarding (human) needs. If he frees the elf anyway, he is a good guy for not perpetuating slavery BUT simultaneously potentially dooms the elf to the kind of life Winky faced. I struggle to see why keeping the elf when s/he wants that is necessarily considering only WIZARDING needs. Why is there the assumption that the wizard buys into the whole mentality to such a degree that he only cares, really, down deep, about himself? Though I will say that this -- > If you had said, "Sure Snorty, you can still stay here and work > for me. But you will work for me as a Free Elf" then her status > would have changed. -- would solve a lot, wouldn't it?? If Harry in particular or wizards in general would take that step of insisting that the house elf change the name and definition of his/her position, even if s/he stuck around and served the wizard anyway, it would solve the legal dilemma you describe here: Magpie: > Illusionary freedom that's dependent on how the person with the > real power feels is worthless--Snorty changing her mind only works > if you don't change your mind--maybe you don't think you would > change your mind and so keep her enslaved, but you could and you > might, especially if what she wanted to do conflicted with your > interests, as it did for Harry and Dumbledore. (Or you might die > and she'd find herself inherited as property.) A person needs their > own legal rights to be protected. You can't depend on the person > who has the rights to look out for you. SSSusan: I still feel there *is* something different between RW human slavery and what we see in WW house elfhood ? at least in those cases, like at Hogwarts, where freedom has been freely offered and declined, especially if the master truly *does* wish to give the freedom but doesn't want to turn out an elf who doesn't want to be turned out. I will continue to say I sure wish JKR would have given us an alternate term/word/concept for this, because I think the house elf desire to serve and to not be freed complicates the use of "slavery" as we use it in the RW. Siriusly Snapey Susan From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 00:04:42 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:04:42 -0000 Subject: House elves (WAS: realistic resolutions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180872 >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180799 > > Mike: > > > > They are not human slaves, yet if you define them in terms > > of your own culture, what do you have to equate them to > > other than human slaves? > a_svirn: > I don't see why I should equate them to anything. Mike: Then what's the problem? People own horses, leader dogs, guard dogs, hunting dogs, dairy cows, laying chickens, etc. All of which are living beings that are owned by human masters and are forced to do their bidding. If you don't equate house elf slavery to human slavery, then why is owning them any different than owning the aforementioned list of beings? > a_svirn: > What do you equate wizards to? Mike: Us, humans, people. How do you apply our cultural norms to the WW and not think of wizards as the humans they obviously are? Isn't that what we were talking about here, cultural, societal acceptability? > a_svirn: > What do you equate bankers who have different notions of property > and ownership than humans to? Mike: Nothing, just as I don't equate the house elf condition to real world human slavery. And that after all is my point. There is nothing to equate goblins, werewolves, centaurs, or house elves to in the RW. So when you ask me to apply our cultaural norms to the WW, for the treatment of these creatures, I say it's not that straight forward. > a_svirn: > House-elves' slavery might be a weird thing to > account for, but it is still slavery. Mike: Right, but it's not the same as human slavery and therefore not the same thing for the wizards that own them. There is no human slavery in the WW. Likewise, as Goddlefrood pointed out, there is no house elf slave trade in the WW. I'm sorry, but it seems to me to be a disconnect to say you don't equate house elf slavery to human slavery but it's bad for wizards to participate in house elf slavery. Why? If it's not human slavery where's the conflict in morality? Unless you're going to tell me you would be opposed to humans owning ANY animals, how can you say it's abominable for humans to own these non-human animals? >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180831 > Magpie: > > > I'm not disagreeing with any of that as being what's going on in > canon. I think that's the very argument being made in canon. I > just also think that argument adds up to being ultimately okay > with slavery for House Elves since I don't believe "they like it" > changes the fact that they're owned and therefore slaves. Mike: Neither do I. I've said, Alla and Carol have both said, that as pure definition slavery works just fine. As a moral stance, that is, house elf slavery is wrong, full stop, is where our paths diverge. You've always been a pretty objective reader of canon, Magpie, where do you think the house elf sub-plot went? I read Hermione indignant about the slavery existing. She tries to start SPEW, seemingly with the freedom of the house elves in mind. But the house elves make it clear that they don't want her help, they don't want to be free. Then Hermione shifts to concern over treatment of the elves. Here there is no rebuff from the elves. (Admittedly, there doesn't seem to be time for it in the story. But I would disagree if someone said canon indicated that elves would be opposed to better conditions.) Canon seems to tell me that house elves don't want to be free and to impose freedom would be moralistic imperialism. If there was an object lesson for the Trio, that was it. This is a different world than the one Hermione and Harry came from. They must accept and acknowledge different norms when dealing with the various magical creatures in this world. That's the way canon reads to me. Mind you, I'm not saying you should agree with that message. Just that that is the object lesson canon puts out there. > Magpie: > > > If I were actually in the society I think there are very good > reasons for looking for ways they could be freed rather than > listing the reasons they shouldn't be and being happy with that. > But this society doesn't exist so it doesn't really matter. Mike: A quick point on this society. When I'm talking about how wizards treat other species and what is their norm, I'm talking in terms of the average run of the mill wizard, like Arthur and Molly. I'm not going to explain or justify what Umbridge and her ilk do in that corrupt Ministry with their ridiculous laws. When it comes to whether wizards accept other species' cultures (btw, I don't consider werewolves a different species), I look for that average wizard and what they do. As far as I can tell, wizards accept centaurs, merpeople, and house elves cultures as they are. The only exception (which is a law from the Ministry) is goblins wanting to have wands. Combining that with the goblin's right of ownership position and goblins seem to be saying, "What we make is ours and what you make should be ours too." It's no wonder wizards couldn't abide that philosophy. But they seem to have come to a compromise to co-exist. So, I don't think it's accurate to say wizards only abide other creatures cultures if they are favorable to wizards. Mike From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Jan 22 18:29:07 2008 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:29:07 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <479635F3.3090501@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180873 susanmcgee48176 wrote: > First, the house elves are not of the same species as humans, and > that gives us the idea that well, maybe, it IS in their nature to be > slaves, and to be truly unhappy were they free. (That makes me > incredibly uncomfortable). > Well, there are a number of animal species that naturally look for and follow leaders (such as dogs). Most people don't consider the way we treat dogs to be slavery. Now, house elves can talk, and have shown the ability to reason. But where did house elves come from? The first, and only correct answer is JKR's imagination. And she does have a past habit of not really thinking things through to their logical conclusions (such as the clear division between muggleborn students who are not allowed to practice magic at all during the summer, even to do their homework, while purebloods and halfbloods are supervised solely by their families, giving purebloods and halfbloods a potential MAJOR advantage at school, if this were real, and not imaginary). So, are they: A) A species that evolved with magic, and were forced into slavery by the wizard establishment? B) Altered people? C) A lower species whose evolution was taken over by Wizards, to form servants? D) Genetically engineered from multiple species, including people? E) Created by wizards out of non-living materials? Was Dobby, by house elf standards, insane, a genius (both?)? What happens when house elves die? Can house elves be transferred form one family to another? Ron implies that they can; Winky that they can't. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jan 23 01:09:20 2008 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:09:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <479693C0.6090901@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180874 Carol: > no last name and her white owner) is "a *person* person held in > servitude as the chattel of another." "Person" is defined as "human > individual." As Ron reminds Hermione, House-Elves aren't human. The writers of M-W don't know about non-human people. Or, I guess if centaurs to were placed into forced labor, it would not be slavery, because Merriem Webster, the arbiter of all things legal, doesn't define it as such? Bart From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 01:48:32 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:48:32 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapter 1, post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180875 > Alla: > PS/SS ch. 1: > "I know you haven't, said Professor Mcgonagall, sounding half > exasperated, half admiring. But you're different. Everyone knows > you're the only one You-Know- oh all right, Voldemort was frightened > of. > You flatter me, said Dumbledore calmly. Voldemort had powers I will > never have. > Only because you're too ? well ? noble to use them "? p.11 > Alla: > I always thought that she is talking about Dumbledore's powers that > he is too noble to use. But in the previous sentence Dumbledore is > talking about Voldemort's powers. Is it possible that another > interpretation of this dialogue is that Dumbledore is able to use > something of Voldemort's? Like object? Does that make sense? zgirnius: No, I think your original interpretation is the correct one. McGonagall is simply saying that some of Voldemort's power comes from his willingness to do evil, and Dumbledore will not do the same because he is too noble. This is a scene I see differently in the post-DH light, though. The bit you cite is followed by: >PS/SS: > "It's lucky it's dark. I haven't blushed so much since Madam Pomfrey told me she liked my new earmuffs." zgirnius: I presume Dumbledore may be blushing or feeling embarassed, but I no longer think he is merely modest. I think he is feeling just a tad guilty about the way he is perceived by Minerva and other Order members, when he does not see himself as 'too noble' at all. He knows what he was involved with as a young man, and he may be thinking ahead to what he will be doing with Harry when Harry is older, and finding the words 'too noble' doe not fit all that well. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 02:11:48 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:11:48 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint/ some Kreacher In-Reply-To: <479635F3.3090501@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180876 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >> Well, there are a number of animal species that naturally look for and > follow leaders (such as dogs). Most people don't consider the way we > treat dogs to be slavery. Now, house elves can talk, and have shown the > ability to reason. But where did house elves come from? The first, and > only correct answer is JKR's imagination. So, are they: >> D) Genetically engineered from multiple species, including people? > E) Created by wizards out of non-living materials? Alla: I think that there is one thing that may point us to elves being created artificially, but that depends on one rather important fact that I may have gotten wrong. We do not see house elves reproducing, right? No indication of children house elves, no? Or is there a mention? If there is no mention anywhere, I think it CAN be a support towards speculation of their artificial creation and maybe even from non- living materials. Does not have to be of course, but why wouldn't we seen house elves families? Or did we? Carol responds: I understand why you think that Kreacher is (partially?) responsible for Sirius Black's death (though I don't agree). But do you also blame him for Regulus's self-sacrifice? Surely, it was Reggie's own decision to return to the cave with Kreacher, drink that terrible potion himself even though he knew what it would do (he would be forced to drink the water and die horribly, killed by Inferi), and it was also his plan, and, indeed, his order to destroy the locket, that saved Kreacher's life by causing him to Disapparate from the cave. Alla: Oh, no, I believe I have objective reason to blame Kreacher dear for Sirius' death ( partial of course), but I blame him for Reg's death out of pure prejudice against this character, you know? Sort of like Harry being blamed for Sirius' death ( loose analogy but holds the water for me). So, in short I do know that Kreacher objectively had nothing to do with Regulus' death, except being the one for whom Reg sacrificied it. I just hate little bagger. Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 02:23:38 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:23:38 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint/ some Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180877 > Alla: > Does not have to be of course, but why wouldn't we seen house elves > families? Or did we? zgirnius: You did misremember, House Elves have families and reproduce in a manner sufficiently similar to humans to have mothers. > GoF: > "Oh you is a bad elf, Dobby!" moaned Winky, tears leaking down her face once more. "My poor Mr. Crouch, what is he doing without Winky? He is needing me, he is needing my help! I is looking after the Crouches all my life, and my mother is doing it before me, and my grandmother is doing it before her ... oh what is they saying if they knew Winky was freed? Oh the shame, the shame!" She buried her face in her skirt again and bawled. zgirnius: And I believe that the House Elves on the Blacks' walls are relatives of Kreacher. Though I may have that wrong, I don't have the quote handy. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 23 03:01:08 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:01:08 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint/ some Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180878 Alla: > So, in short I do know that Kreacher objectively had nothing to do > with Regulus' death, except being the one for whom Reg sacrificied it. > I just hate little bagger. Potioncat: Oh dear. You're starting to sound like a certain Potions master. If we change the words just a little, "So in short, I do know that Harry objectively had nothing to do with Lily's death, except being the one for whom Lily sacrificed it. I just hate the little bagger." ;-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 03:50:47 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:50:47 -0000 Subject: Ron's Return In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180879 ->Carol, wishing that Snape had stayed around to witness the destruction of the Horcrux and wondering what would have happened if he'd had to rescue Harry because Ron didn't show up > > > Potioncat: > I thought he knew Ron was there and that was the need and valor part--that Snape set it up for Ron, not for Harry. Well, for Harry and Ron. > Carol responds: well, yes and no. I think his original plan was to set it up for Harry. He probably didn't know about Ron's defection, and he definitely didn't know about the Horcrux. But when he saw Ron and Harry separated, he altered the plan. He still hid the Sword in the icy pool and led Harry there with the doe Patronus, but he also led Ron to Harry, who at that point had shown valor (and stupidity in not taking off the Horcrux), but it was up to Ron to show valor (and chivalry) in response to Harry's need. Snape seems to have stayed to make sure that Ron rescued Harry and the Sword, but Disapparated before they could spot him, which also meant that he didn't get to witness the destruction of the Horcrux. So Snape's plan worked out beautifully--better than he can have originally intended before he brought Ron into it. However, had Ron not shown up to rescue Harry, Snape would have had to rescue Harry himself since Harry couldn't retrieve the Sword alone thanks to the strangling Horcrux. Imagine that scene--Snape not only has to reveal himself and his loyalties by rescuing Harry, he also finds out about, and perhaps helps to destroy, the Horcrux. Snape in the forest with the Sword of Gryffindor. Yeah. I like that scenario even better than the one we actually got (though I'd have to give up Ron's heroism to get Snape's, and Snape proved his immense courage even without that spectacular bit of valor). Carol, who thinks that Snape put two and two together to improve his original plan, with both Harry and Ron as beneficiaries From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 04:01:38 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:01:38 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180880 -a_svirn: > Except that Kreacher did rebel against his master. And tried to defy > another. That's two thirds of our elvish acquaintance. > Carol: Conveniently not counting some hundred House-Elves at Hogwarts--or Hokey, for that matter. Carol, who thinks we have quite a fair sampling of normal House-Elves,none of them remotely rebellious From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jan 23 04:39:45 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:39:45 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180881 > Magpie: > > The only fundamental change is the way you say you see yourself. > > Nothing has changed in Snorty's situation until her freedom is > > actually granted for real. > > Pippin: > No. Something has fundamentally changed if Snorty has the right to > her freedom if she wishes it. Magpie: Unless she should happen to wish it at a time when it's really not convenient for me to grant it. Because I still have to grant it. She's still a slave. If she doubts it, she can try disobeying an order of mine. I think if you want to be the awesome slave owner who doesn't actually own slaves, you have to free them. I know that elves make that very difficult and I sympathize with good Wizards who can't just free them and be done with it. But until the elves are free, they're not free. Pippin: That's the kind of reform Hermione and > Dumbledore would like to see. It's true they don't free Kreacher or > allow him to choose another master, but though house elf slavery > was exploited to keep him captive, it was not the purpose. > No leader would allow valuable secrets to be passed to the enemy > in wartime if he could help it, whether the spy was free or unfree, > adult or child, human or otherwise. If I gave aid and comfort to > the enemy in wartime, or even looked like I might, I'd probably lose > my freedom too. > Marietta was branded and then obliviated. Kreacher's lucky to have > got off with house arrest. Magpie: Yeah, it's true they don't free Kreacher to allow him to choose another Master. It really makes no difference that exploiting house elf slavery wasn't "the purpose." Of course it wasn't the purpose, it was the convenient means to an end--Hermione and Dumbledore's end. Not the slave's end. I'm sure most stuff that's done to House Elves is done as a means to an end. No need to passionately defend they did it or come up with unrelated stuff that might have been worse. I know why they did it. I don't argue with them doing it. I'm saying that they could do it because Kreacher was a slave. Like our hypothetical Snorty until she's actually freed. So if it were wartime and Snorty came and said hey, she's going to take you up on that offer and work for the Death Eaters, you could do the same thing to her as was done to Kreacher. He's not under house arrest; he's a slave. Or to use another analogy, if John says he would totally marry Mary if she wanted to get married, that does not make John and Mary married. Pippin: > There's a word for people who think slaves should be given freedom > on demand. It's "abolitionist." Magpie: I believe abolitionists thought slavery should be abolished completely. Hence the name. SSSusan: I still feel there *is* something different between RW human slavery and what we see in WW house elfhood ? at least in those cases, like at Hogwarts, where freedom has been freely offered and declined, especially if the master truly *does* wish to give the freedom but doesn't want to turn out an elf who doesn't want to be turned out. I will continue to say I sure wish JKR would have given us an alternate term/word/concept for this, because I think the house elf desire to serve and to not be freed complicates the use of "slavery" as we use it in the RW. Magpie: The difference imo is that house elves make better slaves than most people because they love it and aspire to it. Isn't that the difference here? Not only do they make it hard by appealing to our sympathy by being so sad at the prospect of being freed, but they make such great slaves the way they punish themselves and are happy all the time. But I'm glad there isn't an alternate word or concept because I think it would just be a euphamism for slave owning. I know that Harry has a different attitude towards house elves than Lucius Malfoy, but he has the same power over Kreacher as Lucius had over Dobby. That power is different than with human slaves, but it actually does I believe bring to life plenty of the same feelings as human slaves and servants in more strict class systems do. I don't think it's unusual for slave owners to want to ultimately erase the institution of slavery from their understanding of themselves. -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 05:46:23 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:46:23 -0000 Subject: Patronage, the Poor Weasleys, and Poor Scrimgeour Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180882 PATRONAGE To set the stage for this post, I'd like to offer Pharnabazus' excellent essays on the Patronage system and how the WW conforms to it: http://pharnabazus.livejournal.com/715.html I highly recommend the entire essay, though you may find parts out of date since it was written before HBP. To understand the Patronage part, I'd say parts 1 through 3 are sufficient. A brief synopsis; what Pharnabazus lays out is a system not unlike the Greek city-states of around the time of the Peloponnesian Wars, or the Italian city-states of the 13th century. There are groups of people that are beholden to a cell leader, support and fight that leader's fights. In exchange, the supporters expect the protection of that leader from political intrigue and a relief from having to worry about the general necessities of life, the cell leader assuming the role of provider. In the case of the WW, the cell leader is ensuring their way of life, promoting the things that the underlings find valuable. I think JKR wrote this type of system when she wrote the series, whether or not it was done consciously or intentionally. The corruptness of the Ministry goes hand in hand with the type of governance you get with a patronage system. Her major Patrons were Dumbledore and Voldemort. The minor patrons were people like Lucius Malfoy, Bartemius Crouch Sr., and with a lesser cell, Cornelius Fudge. I'm sure there must be others, but there wasn't any mentioned of those characters. WEASLEYS The Weasleys seem to have the basics of life, they never seem to lack for food or shelter. Though nobody is confusing the Burrow for a mansion, I'm with Harry, if I were in that world I'd much rather live in an obviously magical home than something that could be confused for a Muggle home of one with conspicuous wealth. Heck, even the ghoul in the attic makes himself useful in the end. Also, it appears the Weasleys grow or raise most of their own food. And something tells me Molly has become an expert at stretching her ingredients to feed all those mouths. Yet a major theme in the Weasleys lives was their seeming poverty. Manifested in poor clothes, used books, and hand-me-down wands. Was it simply a result of having too many children, as Draco teased? Can we chalk up Arthur's lower ranking and probably lower pay at the Ministry to his quirky facination with all things Muggle? Well, if Arthur advertised the same, I suppose so. But was this facination known outside of his family? I'm thinking no. I've wondered if part of their problem is that Arthur was languishing outside of the patronage system. We were told that Arthur and Molly weren't in the Order the first time around. That would mean they weren't in Dumbledore's patron cell. That would also mean that Arthur had nobody watching over him and trying to secure promotions for him, when positions opened up. Notice how Arthur spends one year as a Dumbledore cell member, then when Dumbledore comes out on the winning side against the Ministry (Fudge's cell), Arthur gets a promotion. Then, when Voldemort's cell takes over at the Ministry, Arthur seems to have gone stationary, while others around him are moving up. Of course you'll say that's because Arthur is a known Order member. But that only shows that this is indeed a patronage system, as that's what it means to be in the ascending cells and declining cells. SCRIMGEOUR First a little history. When Crouch Sr. had his PR problems, he undoubtedly lost face with a lot of his supporters/underlings. Fudge, with his lesser patronage, seized the opportunity and became MoM. But Fudge couldn't hold his own against the likes of Malfoy's patronage. So he ended up playing a dangerous game of accepting Lucius' help and money, while trying to stay independent. Lucius, who was undoubtedly trying to get his people advanced on behalf of Voldemort's master plan, was probably hoping to absorb Fudge's smaller patronage given enough time. When Fudge was ousted, there wasn't a patronage ready to step in. Crouch's old patronage seems to have not yet reformed under a new leader. Those people had either joined a different cell or were still free agents. Lucius was in prison, and therefore his cell was leaderless. Dumbledore seemed loathe to have anything to do with the Ministry any more. Which leads me to poor Scrimmy. Since the WW finally recognized it was at war, it turned to a quasi- military man as it's leader. Reminiscent of how Churchill, a former defence minister, ascended to power after Chamberlain's disgrace. The problem for poor Scrimmy is that he was not only unready for the position, he didn't seem to be at the head of any patronage cell at all. He promoted Arthur, one of DD's men. He left Umbridge in, though she surely wasn't beholden to him. He either left Thickness in place or promoted him to a departmental head position. Either way, I don't think Thickness was one of Scrimmy's own, at least it appears that Thickness was susceptible to the DEs because of his lack of loyalty to Scrimmy. Heck, he even kept Percy. Poor Scrimgeour, thrust into a position of leadership without the tools necessary to survive in this system. I.e. Scrimmy had no supporting patronage cell to help him fight his fights. Mike From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 05:55:51 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:55:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180883 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Troy Doyle wrote: > 1. Were you surprised that the trio were apparating to Grimmauld > Place on the top outside step and why? I had no problem with the idea that the Fidelius Charm would cover not just the house itself, but also some space around it. However, I think it would be more logical if not only the top step was included, but the entire outside stairs, as part of the house. Otherwise, it's not very clear to me how the rest of the stairs fit in here - are the lower steps visible then? zanooda From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Jan 23 05:57:08 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:57:08 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180884 > Pippin: > No. Something has fundamentally changed if Snorty has the right to > her freedom if she wishes it. That's the kind of reform Hermione > and Dumbledore would like to see. Yes, and I bet Harry will come around, too. I'm sure he would offer Kreacher his freedom. If poor Kreacher is still so brainwashed by the centuries of house elf enslavement, then Harry will do the kind thing, make sure Kreacher wants for nothing, accept some services for him, and ensure that his life is as pleasant and comfortable as possible. If one inherited slaves, and some refused to be freed, I imagine one might offer them security, kindness, and give them some duties that would make them feel happy and secure. All those who wanted freedom would have it. An "ethical" (not kind) "Master" would provide education that would eventually mean that the slaves' children would be more truly free. Susan From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 06:33:31 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:33:31 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapter 1, post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180885 > > " but how in the name of Heaven did Harry survive? > We can only guess, said Dumbledore. We may never know" ? p.12 > > Alla: > > So does this line means that at this point in time Dumbledore does > not know that Harry is a Horcrux? Mike: I think this quote hints at Dumbledore suspecting the ancient love magic from Lily's sacrifice. Though how Dumbledore knew what went down at GH, we never found out. I have my favorite quote from this chapter, that I assumed was a clue that Dumbledore was aware of the soul piece in Harry? ... they could see a curiously shaped cut, like a bolt of lightening. "Is that where --?" whispered Professor McGonnagall. "Yes," said Dumbledore. "He'll have that scar forever." "Couldn't you do something about it, Dumbledore?" >>> "Even if I could, I wouldn't...." <<< p. 15 It's that "Even if I could" that set me off. It sounded like Dumbledore was saying he couldn't heal that cut, prevent that scar. Why wouldn't Dumbledore be able to heal a simple cut to not leave a scar? It seemed obvious to me that it *wasn't* a simple cut. There was more to that cut. Now it appears that maybe it was because it was made by an AK, and like George's ear severed by dark magic, it couldn't be properly healed either. But I always took it as having something to do with the entry of a soul piece. Mike From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 23 12:26:40 2008 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:26:40 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180886 Magpie: > I'm sure most stuff that's done to House Elves is done as a means > to an end. No need to passionately defend they did it or come up > with unrelated stuff that might have been worse. I know why they > did it. I don't argue with them doing it. I'm saying that they > could do it because Kreacher was a slave. Like our hypothetical > Snorty until she's actually freed. So if it were wartime and Snorty > came and said hey, she's going to take you up on that offer and > work for the Death Eaters, you could do the same thing to her as > was done to Kreacher. He's not under house arrest; he's a slave. > > Or to use another analogy, if John says he would totally marry Mary > if she wanted to get married, that does not make John and Mary > married. SSSusan: I think I see your point here. It's the idea that, even if the owner were 99.9% committed to letting Snorty go -- she really *meant* that offer of freedom and only keeps Snorty around because Snorty really, really did not want to leave -- just the fact that she *could* change her mind and say, "Nope, sorry, you CAN'T go" at the point where Snorty now wants to, makes a difference. I see that. And you're right that, legally, it appears there's no reason the owner couldn't make that reversal from what she offered initially. > Magpie: > The difference imo is that house elves make better slaves than most > people because they love it and aspire to it. Isn't that the > difference here? Not only do they make it hard by appealing to our > sympathy by being so sad at the prospect of being freed, but they > make such great slaves the way they punish themselves and are happy > all the time. SSSusan: Well, I'd totally disagree with the make-great-elves-because-they- punish-themselves part. Urg. But, yes, it's the loving it and aspiring to it and, in the example I gave yesterday, DISINCLINATION to leave it when offered the true opportunity to, which makes the difference from human slavery (for me). Magpie: > But I'm glad there isn't an alternate word or concept because I > think it would just be a euphamism for slave owning. I know that > Harry has a different attitude towards house elves than Lucius > Malfoy, but he has the same power over Kreacher as Lucius had over > Dobby. That power is different than with human slaves, but it > actually does I believe bring to life plenty of the same feelings > as human slaves and servants in more strict class systems do. I > don't think it's unusual for slave owners to want to ultimately > erase the institution of slavery from their understanding of > themselves. SSSusan: And here is where we continue to differ. I know WHY you are saying an alternative word/concept would just serve as a euphemism for slavery, and I know that you believe that to be so. In my book, though, the "that power is different than with human slaves" part, plus the different nature of House Elves compared to human slaves, is what makes me wish there were a different term. Siriusly Snapey Susan From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 23 12:58:45 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:58:45 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapter 1, post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180887 Alla: > Here we go without further ado. > > The first weird thing that jumped at me today is that at some point > of talking all things Potter I sort of stopped counting this chapter > as written not from Harry's POV. I mean, it is not like I forgot > exactly, but pushed back so to speak. Does it matter that narrator > is more trustworthy here? Potioncat: This looks fun. I'm jumping in quickly before work, and not having read SS/PS in a long time. For your first question---Quick, get Carol! I think the PoV of or type of Narrator makes a big difference in the telling and setting up of the story. Of course, we couldn't have had this chapter from Harry's PoV. All he could see about now was Hagrid's beard. snipping canon > > Alla: > He decided he did not dare Does it mean what I think it means? Is > it already a foreshadowing that Petunia has no problems dictating > her will to Vernon as she did in OOP when she insisted that Harry > stays? Potioncat: The balance of power seems to ebb and flow with these two. But the wording of the one bit made me wonder, when did Vernon find out about Lily's magic? > Alla: > One cannot help but think about Dumbledore's visit to Dursleys in > HBP, but is it also about Petunia's feelings about Dumbledore "not > allowing" her to go to Hogwarts? And what about the name and boots? > Does it mean simply that the name is too abnormal? Or does it mean > something else? Potioncat: Beautiful wording isn't it? I take it to mean that not only is the person not welcome, but even speaking about him or hearing about him is not wanted either. > " Voldemort had powers I will never have. > Only because you're too ? well ? noble to use them "? p.11 > > Alla: > > We all know this infamous exchange of course, but when I was > rereading it today, I had a thought, well two actually. Minerva > manages to fight off her fear and say Voldemort that early in the > book. And I was also wondering when Minerva says that only because > you are too noble to use them, whether she means what I always > thought she meant. Potioncat: I think it means powers and it sort of foreshadows Harry' use of Cruciatus in DH. The point being he can cast the Dark curse, but does not---well, not after proving he can. (I still don't like the way JKR wrote it.) I don't know if LV had made magical objects that were public knowledge---certainly he may have. DD of course, has his objects too. But now that I think about it, Minerva is pointing out that it takes a certain degree of nobility to avoid using dark magic. A degree she will toss off in DH. > Alla: > "It was plain that whatever everyone was saying, she was not going > to > believe it until Dumbledore told her it was true" ? p.11 -12 > > Alla: > > Do we see foreshadowing of blind trust that order members have in > Dumbledore already? I mean, we do not know about order members yet > obviously, so I should say teachers. Potioncat: Yep. Sets us up too, doesn't it? Does anyone know when did PUPPETMASTER!DD come about on the list?--and even then many of us thought DD was too noble to be a puppetmaster. We were certainly more questioning than DD's fellow wizards. But it worked well for DD, didn't it? He doesn't like to tell in the first place, and everyone trusted him enough not to ask too much. >Alla: > " but how in the name of Heaven did Harry survive? > We can only guess, said Dumbledore. We may never know" ? p.12 > > Alla: > > So does this line means that at this point in time Dumbledore does > not know that Harry is a Horcrux? Potioncat: I don't think he does. I'm sure he has a strong opinion of what went on, but did not want to share it. In a later post, someone brings up DD's attitude about the scar. DD knows Tom Riddle was interested in Horcruxes, and he knows the Dark Lord will mark the chosen one (cannot recall the words.) So DD must know/suspect the scar will have some magic. I don't think he suspects Horcrux!Harry until he finds out from this list--I mean, OoP, maybe? Isn't there some canon about it in one of the later books? > > > Alla: > > Well, that's all for now. Please feel free to add what you see in > the new light after last book if anything. > > I will be back with the new installment soon, hehe. Potioncat: This is great. I'm looking forward to a post DH re-read myself, and I'm really glad we're getting the opportunity to discuss the books. Thanks, Alla! From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 23 13:08:19 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:08:19 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180888 > Carol responds: > Not muc else to say except that I'm wondering how Lupin escaped being > seen if the DEs were already watching the house and he didn't have an > Invisibility Cloak. Maybe I'm forgetting something? Potioncat: The first step was covered by the FC. So no one would see Lupin or the Trio there. I think the step is visible. Have we determined that the house itself is invisible to the DEs? > > > > Carol responds: > It certainly didn't affect her in the same way it affected HRH, > especially Ron (making them depressed and angry). Evidently, it sensed > a kindred spirit. Possibly, it increased her self-confidence or > intensified her pro-Voldemort sympathies. Potioncat: I think it may have intensified her negative feelings; given her the determination to get rid of the Muggleborns? It was more in tune with her than with Ron, for example. If it can make a basically good person react so strongly to negative feelings, I would think it would do the same for someone who already worked on Dark thoughts. > > > > 4. We find out Snape is the new Headmaster at Hogwarts. Who else > did you think might take this place? Perhaps as Deputy Headmistress > in the past it could have been McGonagall? > > Carol: I would have loved to read more of Snape's > acceptance speech. Potioncat: I wish we had seen more too. There were so many things he wasn't able to prevent, it would have been interesting to see what he was doing. And I would have liked to see the Slughorn dynamic as well. I think he was alternating between being Snape's man and one of the gang. > Carol, still wondering where Kreacher got the ingredients for treacle > tarts and other goodies Potioncat: I thought it was combined House-Elf magic and kitchen magic. The house had been equiped to feed the Order members not so long ago. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 13:39:42 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:39:42 -0000 Subject: House elves (WAS: realistic resolutions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180889 > Mike: > I'm sorry, but it seems to me to be a disconnect to say you don't > equate house elf slavery to human slavery but it's bad for wizards to > participate in house elf slavery. Why? If it's not human slavery > where's the conflict in morality? Unless you're going to tell me you > would be opposed to humans owning ANY animals, how can you say it's > abominable for humans to own these non-human animals? a_svirn: Because, of course in the WW morality is not exclusively human domain. Elves have morality too. Together with many other things that in real life are regarded as exclusively human attributes. Otherwise how come you say that Kreacher *betrayed* Sirius? It is inaccurate to equate elves to humans? Fine. Would you mind explaining how come it is accurate to liken them to animals? It is about as accurate as liken merpeople to fish. They aren't animals, they are sentient beings, they have language, culture, ethics, personality, identity. All those things that animals do not have. They are persons, in other words. And owning persons is different than owning cattle. Or should be, at any rate. Moreover, when you take the stance that they are no better than animals you effectively throw away your own argument that we have to take elves' own *values* and inclinations into account. We do not own sheep and cows because they want to be owned by us. We do it because we can and it suits us, and as for their nature, why, we have been tampering with it in for millenniums without asking their permission. > > Mike: > You've always been a pretty objective reader of canon, Magpie, where > do you think the house elf sub-plot went? I read Hermione indignant > about the slavery existing. She tries to start SPEW, seemingly with > the freedom of the house elves in mind. But the house elves make it > clear that they don't want her help, they don't want to be free. a_svirn: That looks a bit too selective for objectivity. SPEW's only one of many elves subplots. You dismiss Dobby as an oddity, but SPEW is an oddity too. Hermione is quite comically wrongheaded in her approach to the problem, on many levels: practical, theoretical, ethical. SPEW on the whole can be more easily dismissed, than the existence of a free elf. How about OotP? Kreacher's subplot was crucial there, and Kreacher did not want to be owned by his master, he even rebelled against him. > Mike: > Then Hermione shifts to concern over treatment of the elves. Here > there is no rebuff from the elves. a_svirn: But she did not address elves. Or even one elf. She addressed her concerns to a wizard, and one, moreover, who just happens to be the best of the good guys. Why should he rebuff her, when all she has to say, is that self-punishment is awful thing to behold. Since she did not appeal to elves, they could not rebuff or accept her ideas. They wasn't her audience this time around. > Mike: > A quick point on this society. When I'm talking about how wizards > treat other species and what is their norm, I'm talking in terms of > the average run of the mill wizard, like Arthur and Molly. I'm not > going to explain or justify what Umbridge and her ilk do in that > corrupt Ministry with their ridiculous laws. a_svirn: The ministry has been perhaps corrupt ever since it came into being. And has been persecuting other species for the approximately same length of time. > Mike: > When it comes to whether wizards accept other species' cultures (btw, > I don't consider werewolves a different species), I look for that > average wizard and what they do. As far as I can tell, wizards accept > centaurs, merpeople, and house elves cultures as they are. a_svirn: Except that there was a bit anti-centaurs legislation in OotP, as far as I remember. As for merpeople, wizards do not seem to have any interaction with them (perhaps because they aren't fish, and can'd live underwater). Whenever they do interact, they strive to impose their culture. > Mike: The only > exception (which is a law from the Ministry) is goblins wanting to > have wands. Combining that with the goblin's right of ownership > position and goblins seem to be saying, "What we make is ours and > what you make should be ours too." It's no wonder wizards couldn't > abide that philosophy. But they seem to have come to a compromise to > co-exist. a_svirn: Yet the compromise seems to be entirely on goblins' part. a_svirn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 14:11:29 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:11:29 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180890 > >>SSSusan: > I think I see your point here. It's the idea that, even if the > owner were 99.9% committed to letting Snorty go -- she really > *meant* that offer of freedom and only keeps Snorty around because > Snorty really, really did not want to leave -- just the fact that > she *could* change her mind and say, "Nope, sorry, you CAN'T go" at > the point where Snorty now wants to, makes a difference. I see > that. And you're right that, legally, it appears there's no reason > the owner couldn't make that reversal from what she offered > initially. Betsy Hp: Not only that, if the owner had a psychotic break or something and said, "Snorty, cut off your foot," Snorty would have to do it. Doesn't matter what the law might say, Snorty, at that moment in time would have no choice but to cut off her foot. The owner demanded it, and in that relationship, Snorty has no power to say no. At that point Snorty couldn't even run: the magic compulsion wouldn't allow her to. So in many ways, Snorty has less power than a slave in the US circa 1800. Sure, there might be legal ramifications (though honestly, Snorty couldn't report her owner if that owner told her not to). But poor Snorty would still be missing a foot. > >>Magpie: > > But I'm glad there isn't an alternate word or concept because I > > think it would just be a euphamism for slave owning. > > > >>SSSusan: > And here is where we continue to differ. I know WHY you are saying > an alternative word/concept would just serve as a euphemism for > slavery, and I know that you believe that to be so. In my book, > though, the "that power is different than with human slaves" part, > plus the different nature of House Elves compared to human slaves, > is what makes me wish there were a different term. Betsy Hp: Wizards have *greater* power over their house-elves than human owners ever did with their human slaves. If a slave owner in the deep South told his slave to cut of her foot, that slave could flee the room, flee the house, and attempt at least, to flee her owner's reach. It would have been damn hard, and more than likely the owner would have her draggged back to cut off her foot himself. With a house-elf, none of that fuss. You tell a house-elf to do something, make sure it's a direct order with no wiggle room, the house-elf has no choice but to do it. Hell, even a dog can run if its owner starts beating on it. The house-elf doesn't even have that level of freedom. Would Harry ever ask Kreacher to do such a thing? More than likely not. (Though, IIRC, per Fredrick Douglas, his most brutal owners were the ones initially most resistant to owning him.) But he could. And there's nothing Kreacher could do to stop him. *That's* what makes Kreacher a slave. And *that's* what makes Harry a slave owner. Betsy Hp From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 16:35:40 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:35:40 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapter 1, post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180891 > Potioncat: > I don't think he does. I'm sure he has a strong opinion of what went > on, but did not want to share it. In a later post, someone brings up > DD's attitude about the scar. DD knows Tom Riddle was interested in > Horcruxes, and he knows the Dark Lord will mark the chosen one > (cannot recall the words.) So DD must know/suspect the scar will have > some magic. I don't think he suspects Horcrux!Harry until he finds > out from this list--I mean, OoP, maybe? Isn't there some canon about > it in one of the later books? zgirnius: When Dumbledore learns that Voldemort took some of Harry's blood into his body, we are shown that infamous 'gleam of triumph'. > GoF: >"He said my blood would make him stronger than if he'd used someone else's," Harry told Dumbledore. "He said the protection my - my mother left in me - he'd have it too. And he was right - he could touch me without hurting himmself, he touched my face." >For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes. But next second. Harry was sure he had imagined it, for when Dumbledore had returned to his seat behind the desk, he looked as old and weary as Harry had ever seen him. zgirnius: What I take this to mean, is that long before the conversation cited above ever took place, Dumbledore has known about Harry Horcrux, and despite long thought devoted to the problem, has been unable to devise a solution to it which does not involve Harry's death. Until this moment, when he sees the possibility of the "blood Horcrux" or however you want to term that bit explained in DH, that by taking Harry's blood, Voldmeort ensured that Lily;s sacrifice lived on in the world and Harry could not be killed by Voldemort. This does not prove he knew right then in PS/SS, he might have figured it out in the intervening years, but I would guess he knew no later than the start of GoF, when Harry confided that his scar hurt to Sirius (who passed that information on). Though I would not rule out his knowing right from the very start. It would be a reason to maintain a distance from Harry, emotionally. Because if he cared for Harry, he would dread one day have to tell the boy that to defeat Voldemort, he had to die himself. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 23 16:59:01 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:59:01 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180892 > > Pippin: > > No. Something has fundamentally changed if Snorty has the right to > > her freedom if she wishes it. > > Magpie: > Unless she should happen to wish it at a time when it's really not > convenient for me to grant it. Because I still have to grant it. > She's still a slave. If she doubts it, she can try disobeying an > order of mine. Pippin: I see your point. But the law could require you to give your elf clothing under certain circumstances. It doesn't even have to be your clothing and you don't have to personally give it, so the Ministry could free your elf without your consent just as Harry freed Dobby or Hermone attempted to free the Elves of Gryffindor Tower. You could evade the law of course, just as I could hold a legally free person captive, brainwash her, and convince her to obey me, or cut off her own foot for that matter. You're pointing out that an elf's right to freedom could be very difficult to enforce and I agree with you, but that's not the same as the unreformed situation where the right is not acknowledged. I'm not one of the ones who's saying house-elf slavery shouldn't be called slavery. I'm saying the fact that Harry still owns a slave at the end of the series doesn't indicate that he is pro-slavery or that he thinks the institution of slavery is a social good and intends it to continue. > Pippin: > > There's a word for people who think slaves should be given freedom > > on demand. It's "abolitionist." > > Magpie: > I believe abolitionists thought slavery should be abolished > completely. Hence the name. Pippin: I believe there were radical abolitionists who wanted slavery abolished immediately by whatever means necessary, and gradual abolitionists who wanted slavery abolished by peaceful, legal means, and meanwhile wanted slaves to be better treated. Both positions are called abolitionism. Of course there were hypocritical slave-owners who wrapped themselves in the mantle of gradual abolitionism while continuing to exploit their slaves as much as possible. But I don't see this happening in the books. We don't even know if Harry thought of ordering Kreacher to bring him a sandwich. He may only have been hoping that Kreacher would think of him. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 17:21:28 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:21:28 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180893 > >>Pippin: > > You could evade the law of course, just as I could hold a legally > free person captive, brainwash her, and convince her to obey me, > or cut off her own foot for that matter. > Betsy Hp: At which point, you've convinced that free person that she is not free and that you are her owner. It's just in Potterverse, it's easy and legal. (No one is hunting Harry down for kidnapping Kreacher. No one hunted Sirius down for kidnapping Kreacher, come to think of it. And Kreacher was very much being held against his will at the time he was owned by Sirius.) > >>Pippin: > > I'm saying the fact that Harry still owns a slave at the end of the > series doesn't indicate that he is pro-slavery or that he thinks > the institution of slavery is a social good and intends it to > continue. Betsy Hp: How is this not double-speak? How can someone own a slave and still expect us to believe he's against slavery? > >>Pippin: > > Of course there were hypocritical slave-owners who wrapped > themselves in the mantle of gradual abolitionism while continuing > to exploit their slaves as much as possible. But I don't see this > happening in the books. Betsy Hp: Sure you do. Harry and Hermione are perfect examples. > >>Pippin: > We don't even know if Harry thought of ordering Kreacher to bring > him a sandwich. He may only have been hoping that Kreacher would > think of him. Betsy Hp: And maybe Harry dreams of running off with Draco. Per the books, Harry identified Kreacher as his property, treated Kreacher like his property, and never entertained thoughts of letting Kreacher go. Looks like a slave-owner, acts like a slave-owner. I don't think it's going out on a limb to say Harry is a slave-owner. It's just, he's the warm and fuzzy kind. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 17:22:42 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:22:42 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180894 SSSusan wrote: > I will continue to say I sure wish JKR would have given us an alternate term/word/concept for this, because I think the house elf desire to serve and to not be freed complicates the use of "slavery" as we use it in the RW. > Magpie responded: > But I'm glad there isn't an alternate word or concept because I think it would just be a euphamism for slave owning. Carol responds: JKR may not have supplied an alternate term, but such a term does exist in English: "servitude." Servitude can be voluntary or involuntary. In the case of House-Elves, it's usually voluntary. House-Elves exist to serve Wizards. That is their nature, their "end," their raison d'etre, their be all and end all. They have no other purpose and no other desire. Their servitude becomes involuntary only when they hate or despise their masters. The Malfoys were cruel to Dobby, who, unusually for a House-Elf, tried to aid an enemy of his masters (but punished himself for disloyalty to the old ones, a separate problem from the so-called slavery itself). Kreacher, too, aided and abetted his master's enemy, but only because he didn't consider Sirius Black his rightful master; he was a traitor to his parents and the Blacks in general. (Kreacher, too, ends up with bandaged hands, but serving Miss Narcissa instead of Sirius is worth it to him.) Both Kreacher and Dobby turn, not to other Elves or to Goblins or to their own resources, but to a different Witch or Wizard, whom they wish to serve in place of their current master(s). Dobby may be a "free" Elf, but he places himself in voluntary servitude to Harry (without pay) and Dumbledore (for less pay and fewer days off than DD offers because he likes work more than he likes money, which he uses only to buy socks). Winky, "freed" and then hired by DD, still considers Mr. Crouch her master. She can refuse to work and become a drunk because the enchantment that forces her to obey has been removed, but she is miserable. She *wants* to work, just not for Dumbledore, who is not, in her view, her master. She wants to return to her wholly voluntary servitude. So we have the Hogwarts House-Elves, happy in their voluntary servitude, Winky happy in her voluntary servitude and miserable when she's "freed"; Kreacher happy in his voluntary servitude to the Blacks, unhappy and subversive in his involuntary servitude to Sirius and contented again in his voluntary servitude to "Master Harry" (who has shown respect for the dead master Kreacher truly loves); Dobby miserable in his involuntary servitude to the Malfoys but happily volunteering his services to Harry as a "free Elf" (and, of course, miserably wandering the WW until he finds a Wizard who will pay him enough to buy socks in the interim, in company with the newly "freed" Winky, for whom "freedom" is misery). Will that do? "Servitude" rather than slavery? That's all there is for House-Elves, and they likes it just fine, miss, so long as they're not abused. Carol, who thinks that human slavery, which is neither natural nor desirable from the viewpoint of the slaves, is wholly different from the natural servitude of the House-Elves, who like what they do and are suited for it, much more so than Trelawney or Hagrid are suited for teaching From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jan 23 18:35:23 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:35:23 -0000 Subject: House elves (WAS: realistic resolutions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180895 > > Mike: > > You've always been a pretty objective reader of canon, Magpie, where > > do you think the house elf sub-plot went? I read Hermione indignant > > about the slavery existing. She tries to start SPEW, seemingly with > > the freedom of the house elves in mind. But the house elves make it > > clear that they don't want her help, they don't want to be free. > > a_svirn: > That looks a bit too selective for objectivity. SPEW's only one of > many elves subplots. You dismiss Dobby as an oddity, but SPEW is an > oddity too. Hermione is quite comically wrongheaded in her approach to > the problem, on many levels: practical, theoretical, ethical. SPEW on > the whole can be more easily dismissed, than the existence of a free > elf. How about OotP? Kreacher's subplot was crucial there, and > Kreacher did not want to be owned by his master, he even rebelled > against him. Magpie: I was trying to answer Mike's post and kept getting tangled up, so I'm going to piggy back here, because what you say here really sums it up for me: "SPEW's only one of many elves subplots." Basically, I think the house elves are a collection of ideas that are sometimes contradictory (should I really believe that elves' loyalty to the good side is as shallow as Kreacher's loyalty to the bad?) and sometimes dead ends. I think they also get revised according to the needs of the plot. I really don't see a throughline in terms of coming to a big lesson about house elves--the biggest changes in the story don't seem like developments so much as just different needs from one book to the next. So in the end all I can do is think of what we ended up with and what that has to say--and there I really agree with montavilla that what I get is something that would be a great lesson for a child growing up in a slave owning society who was being instructed on treating his inferiors well. The ideas about house elves that stay with us are: They're simple-minded, they're happier being owned by Wizards, but as an owner one should be kind and they will serve you better and love you. There's some other stuff thrown in along the way: some humor poked at misguided and overzealous adolescent liberal reformers, a noble slave narrative where the hero earns his most loyal servant through honor and charity, showing that this is more binding than money. The whole thing is a lot more coherent when I stop trying to put an anti- slavery spin on it. I still assume that when it comes to people JKR is anti-slavery. But in terms of the world she's set up here, all the arguments for Elves being free are discarded. Everyone seems to see Dobby as a fluke, an exception who proves the rule, rather than evidence that all the stuff about house elves biologically needing to be owned might be a lie. (I would think slave-owning societies love stories about freed slaves who are twice as loyal to their masters as before--it seems like that would speak to all the anxiety the system would cause in the masters.) So I really wind up with what Betsy sees here: > >>Pippin: > > Of course there were hypocritical slave-owners who wrapped > themselves in the mantle of gradual abolitionism while continuing > to exploit their slaves as much as possible. But I don't see this > happening in the books. Betsy Hp: Sure you do. Harry and Hermione are perfect examples. Magpie: Though they're not hypocritcal if they no longer wrap themselves in the mantle of gradual abolitionism since they're no longer talking about it. Perhaps their stabs at abolition have just proved to them that it's not good for elves. They've moved progressively towards the comfortable slave owner end of the scale. First we figured all slaves should just be free, with Dobby's introduction and Harry passing that test by freeing him. We see Winky in despair and shame over being freed. Then we meet Kreacher who could only be freed at great danger to the good side so they didn't free him. Then Harry inherited a slave who hated him--would he own him in name only to protect the interests of the good side but never exploit his power over him? Nope, he gave him an order when he needed something done. And finally when Kreacher is a willing slave, Harry becomes a willing master. Carol: JKR may not have supplied an alternate term, but such a term does exist in English: "servitude." Servitude can be voluntary or involuntary. In the case of House-Elves, it's usually voluntary. House-Elves exist to serve Wizards. Magpie: Yes, servitude can be voluntary or involitary, but slavery removes the question--you must serve whether you want to or not. When Kreacher wants to serve Harry he does it and when he doesn't want to serve Harry he does it. He is compelled to serve involuntarily even if he often voluntarily serves. >From Harry's pov the only difference is that he needs to be a little more careful in how he gives orders. But his power is the same either way. Carol: That is their nature, their "end," their raison d'etre, their be all and end all. They have no other purpose and no other desire. Their servitude becomes involuntary only when they hate or despise their masters. Magpie: You start with the idea that they have no other purpose or desire than to serve Wizards, but then refer to them not wanting to serve masters they hate or desire. Kreacher and Dobby both had other purposes and desires in mind than serving their masters. The "only when..." is the whole problem--that's the thing the slavery takes care of, and what makes it not so-called slavery but slavery imo. A house elf who leaves the master he doesn't want to serve and finds one he does want to serve is a free servant. The one who is owned can't leave the master he doesn't want to serve is not free. -m From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 23 18:49:03 2008 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:49:03 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180896 Pippin: > > > > I'm saying the fact that Harry still owns a slave at the end of > > the series doesn't indicate that he is pro-slavery or that he > > thinks the institution of slavery is a social good and intends it > > to continue. Betsy Hp: > How is this not double-speak? How can someone own a slave and > still expect us to believe he's against slavery? SSSusan: In the same way that it's been argued several times throughout this thread: that the owner is concerned about trying to force an elf into freedom when s/he doesn't want it and potentially causing a result along the lines of what happened to Winky. With human slavery in the U.S., I do believe that there were people who were truly willing to abolish slavery but who didn't want to give up their slaves until it was mandatory for all to do so. Call that being morally wimpy or whatever you will, but it could've been economic suicide to release all one's slaves when all the other plantation owners around you were keeping theirs. One could work for a change in the system which *all* would have to abide by and still remain a slave owner in the interim, attempting to be the "warm and fuzzy kind" that you identified below. :) Betsy: > Looks like a slave-owner, acts like a slave-owner. I don't think > it's going out on a limb to say Harry is a slave-owner. It's just, > he's the warm and fuzzy kind. SSSusan: Yep, I think Harry was the warm & fuzzy kind. I also think that he could be the kind like I described above. *If* anyone in the WW ever figured out a practical way to free all the house elves so that they didn't have a bunch of homeless, miserable Winkys, but content, gainfully-employed or employable free elves, I think Harry would be all for letting Kreacher go. Just my two knuts. Siriusly Snapey Susan, rather shocked to find herself posting three days in a row From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 19:27:11 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:27:11 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapter 1, post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180897 Alla wrote: > > The first weird thing that jumped at me today is that at some point of talking all things Potter I sort of stopped counting this chapter as written not from Harry's POV. I mean, it is not like I forgot exactly, but pushed back so to speak. Does it matter that narrator is more trustworthy here? > Potioncat responded: > For your first question---Quick, get Carol! > > I think the PoV of or type of Narrator makes a big difference in the telling and setting up of the story. Of course, we couldn't have had this chapter from Harry's PoV. All he could see about now was Hagrid's beard. > Carol responds to the summons and Apparates onto the top step of 4 Privet Drive (which is actually a porch and provides more secure footing than the lower steps): Right. First, Harry's pov won't work because he's a baby, but also he's not present, so we start off with a dramatic narrator, shift to Vernon's pov, and shift again in the second half of the chapter to a dramatic narrator who can't get into anyone's mind and sees the action from the outside. (Both techniques are used in later novels.) SS/PS begins with an objective narrator reporting on the Dursleys' appearance and beliefs. The stetement that the Dursleys "were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much" (SS Am. ed. 1) clearly reflects the Dursleys' view of themselves, not necessarily the narrator's and definitely not the author's (nor the reader's for long). We soon learn that "normal" to Vernon and Petunia (not, of course, to sixteen-month-old Dudley quite yet) means nonmagical, unlike Petunia's sister Lily and her "good-for-nothing husband" (2), a phrase reflecting a slide from objectivity into the Dursleys' pov. (Later, Harry is described as being "as not normal as it was possible to be.") "Normal to the Dursleys also probably means middle-class and ordinary, with the husband making plenty of money to buy a shiny new car and all the latest appliances and gadgets and the wife not having to work outside the home. (The reader, of course, is free to dispute this definition of normalcy.) By the bottom of page 2 (Am. ed., when Mr. Dursley is in his car, the narrative has shifted to his point of vies--that is, the narrator is inside his head rather than viewing the Dursleys from the outside. Just having a different pov from Harry's does not necessarily make the narrator more reliable than he (or she) is later in the story. He's simply restricted to a different set of perceptions and assumptions that contrast with Harry's. For example, when the Muggle Frank Bryce is the pov character in GoF, we're told that there's no such thing as magic and no such word as Quidditch. The reader knows better by this time, of course, but that's Frank's subjective reality and the narrator is reporting from his perspective. Vernon, too, is a Muggle, but unlike Frank, he knows about the magical world because of the Potters. Nevertheless, he's in denial. The cat couldn't have been reading a map: "It must have been a trick of the light." Nor could it be reading the street sign" "cats couldn't read maps *or* signs" (3). We see him more directly fooling himself about the people in cloaks collecting for some cause and not being sure that his nephew's name is Harry (the narrator doesn't provide an alternate explanation), but "he didn't blame her--if *he'd had a sister like that" (5) clearly reflects Vernon's perception that Petunia's sister is abnormal. However, Mrs. Dursley's getting upset at the mention of her sister could hint at something more, Petunia's conflicted feelings about her once-loved sister to which Verson isn't privy. Similarly, her sharp response when Vernon asks if she's heard from her sister lately ("No. Why?") suggests that she's hiding something from Vernon, just as Lupin's similar reaction in PoA to Harry's question about Sirius Black shows that he's hiding something. Vernon, however, provides his own explanation--she looks shocked and angry because they normally pretend that she doesn't have a sister (7). As we shift out of Vernon's point of view, the narrator actually states that Vernon is wrong in his belief that he and Petunia couldn't possibly get mixed up in anything that was going on with the Potters and "their kind" (8). IMO, the Dursleys, unpleasant as they are, do represent ordinary people, Muggles, in one respect: they deny the existence of magic to the extent that they can (and wouldn't even think about it at all if it weren't for Petunia's magical sister). Even the reader, at least most adult readers, has to willingly suspend disbelief to accept the world of the story. If we saw flocks of owls or people in brightly colored cloaks, we'd provide an explanation that fit with our worldview. If we saw a cat reading a map (or a sign), we wouldn't believe our eyes any more than Vernon does. Muggles who didn't have magical relatives would be even more prone to provide such explanations ("They don't see nuffink, do they?). Besides allowing the narrator to introduce owls, cloaks, the Potters, the word "Muggle," and even an Animagus without accurate explanations, Vernon's establishes that a magical world can exist within the ordinary Muggle world without the Muggles' awareness precisely because of the Muggle propensity to explain away anything "abnormal." (Later, of course, we get the Statute of Secrecy, Muggle-repelling charms, Obliviate, and a number of other reasons why we Muggle readers can't see or enter this secret world, which we're neverless encouraged to believe in from the first. And, oddly, we're encouraged to empathize with the "not normal" Harry rather than the "normal" Dursleys, who after all, are "the worst sort of Muggles," as McGonagall, not knowing any genuinely evil Muggles, rather naively puts it. (Of course, presenting Harry in the next chapter as an undersized male Cinderella and giving him glasses, knobbly knees, and unruly hair makes him "normal" in an Everykid sort of way that child readers who aren't handsome or strong or wear glasses can identify with. "Not normal" becomes normal (like me) because "normal" is both unpleasant and oblivious.) Interestingly, the narrator does not slip into the cat's pov even after she transforms into a witch, nor into Albus Dumbledore's. (Hagrid, of course, is a late-comer and couldn't be the pov character for that reason alone.) We see both McGonagall and Dumbledore from the outside, without being privy to their thoughts or perceptions. The narrator is essentially an invisible eavesdropper objectively reporting their words and actions, attributing emotions to them ("angrily," "irritably," "glumly") based on their facial expressions and tone of voice but not indicating how they feel inside (no churning stomachs or stinging eyes) or why they feel as they do other than the dialogue itself. The narrator somehow knows Dumbledore's name but judges his age by the color of his hair and the length of his beard and notes that his nose looks like it had been broken at least twice (8)--a sneaky bit of foreshadowing. DD doesn't *seem* to realize that he's out of place. The sight of the cat *seems* to amuse him "for some reason." He finds what *seems* to be a silver cigarette lighter (9). IOW, the narrator is guessing, and inviting the reader to guess, what DD is thinking and what, exactly, is going on. Clearly, JKR didn't want the reader to know DD's thoughts because she, like DD, wants to keep her secrets. We're not allowed inside McGonagall's head, either, even though she's obviously less well informed than DD. We get an objective description of her, along with her name, provided by DD in dialogue, but her actions, too, are interpreted by the narrator ("as though hoping he was going to tell her something," 10; "it *seemed* that Professor McGonagall hed reached the point that she was most anxious to discuss," 11). There's no reason to question these objective interpretations, which are not distorted by any bias against the characters or against magic, or by ignorance of the WW. They are probably more accurate than McGonagall's viewpoint, which would certainly be distorted by her emotions (fondness for the Potters, dislike of Muggles, fear of Voldemort, general irritation and, later, grief). Probably, JKR has chosen not to get inside her mind because she's not a calm, unbiased observer. It's also possible that, like DD, she knows too much about the WW. Sidenote: JKR never chooses the pov of an adult Witch or Wizard, other than Voldemort's as presented through Harry. Either she uses an objective narrator who sees the characters from the outside, or she chooses a character--a Muggle or Harry--likely to misinterpret the action. Even when she switches briefly to Hermione's pov in SS/PS, Hermione is misinterpreting the action, thinking that Snape is trying to curse Harry rather than countering Quirrell's curse. Her tactic keeps us from knowing too much too soon, and, occasionally, keeps us wrong-footed, so that we misinterpret the actions and words of characters other than the pov character along with him, especially when the pov character is Harry. Carol, astounded to have produced seven long paragraphs in response to Potioncat's summons From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 23 19:57:59 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:57:59 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180898 > Betsy Hp: > At which point, you've convinced that free person that she is not > free and that you are her owner. It's just in Potterverse, it's easy > and legal. (No one is hunting Harry down for kidnapping Kreacher. > No one hunted Sirius down for kidnapping Kreacher, come to think of > it. And Kreacher was very much being held against his will at the > time he was owned by Sirius.) Pippin: We don't know whether the laws concerning house-elves have been changed or not. Hermione expressed her intention to do some good in the world and to take SPEW further. She usually gets what she wants. Her zinger to Scrimgeour would have no force if she didn't consider the ministry able to do good in the first place. Her remark has to be taken in the context of someone who knows that under the then current regime Muggleborns and allies of Dumbledore weren't welcome. We can safely assume that has changed. Obviously it isn't necessary to show the laws being changed to convince readers that they should be changed. Needless to say, the "actual" freeing of fictional house-elves in a fantasy universe would have no great effect on real slaves. In fact, it might work against them. If magical heroes will always arise to free the victims of tyranny, us ordinary joes can let them get on with it. I do wonder why the Order didn't send Kreacher to Hogwarts or let him go to Narcissa before he had a chance to learn their secrets. But I suppose Sirius, determined to assert himself somewhere, refused to allow it. He would have had law and custom on his side along with the house-elf enchantments, and as for Kreacher's feelings, he didn't care about them. If Dumbledore had had the weight of law and custom on his side, it would have been a lot harder for Sirius to ignore Kreacher's rights or the danger that mistreating him presented, even if his lack of concern for Kreacher or the effect of the enchantments didn't change. Laws are not just a mechanism for punishing the people who break them. They are also a powerful statement of society's expectations as to how people should behave. > > >>Pippin: > > > > I'm saying the fact that Harry still owns a slave at the end of the > > series doesn't indicate that he is pro-slavery or that he thinks > > the institution of slavery is a social good and intends it to > > continue. > > Betsy Hp: > How is this not double-speak? How can someone own a slave and still > expect us to believe he's against slavery? Pippin: People who are fiercely opposed to holding wild animals in captivity sometimes have no better choice. The animals' natural habitat may have been destroyed, the animal may be too old or sick or weak to survive in the wild, or it may be bonded or imprinted on humans. All of that seems to apply to Kreacher, plus the added factor that he can express his own opinion: his highest law is to serve his master's bidding. (DH ch 10) How can you believe in freedom for house-elves and not be willing to take their wishes into account? Even when he was angry at Sirius, Kreacher expressed no desire to be freed. He did not want to leave the Black family, he only wanted his master to behave like a proper Black. Once he was convinced that Harry was doing what a proper Black would do, he was content. > > >>Pippin: > > > > Of course there were hypocritical slave-owners who wrapped > > themselves in the mantle of gradual abolitionism while continuing > > to exploit their slaves as much as possible. But I don't see this > > happening in the books. > > Betsy Hp: > Sure you do. Harry and Hermione are perfect examples. Pippin: Perfect examples would have ordered the Elves to fight for Hogwarts, perfectly sure that it was for their own good. Unless you can show me that Harry and Hermione knew the Elves would fight for them anyway, canon refutes your theory. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 19:59:08 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:59:08 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180899 Carol earlier: > > > I'm wondering how Lupin escaped being seen if the DEs were already watching the house and he didn't have an Invisibility Cloak. Maybe I'm forgetting something? > > Potioncat: > The first step was covered by the FC. So no one would see Lupin or the Trio there. I think the step is visible. Have we determined that the house itself is invisible to the DEs? Carol responds: The house itself is definitely invisible: "However, two cloaked men had appeared in the square outside number twelve, and they remained there into the night, gazing in the direction of the house that they could not see" (DH Am. ed. 201). I'm sure you remember that Harry couldn't see the house, either, until he read and processed DD's note about the HQ of the Order being at twelve GP. Standing outside number eleven, he sees number ten to his left and number thirteen to his right. As he thinks about number twelve, "a battered door emerged out of nowhere between numbers eleven and thirteen, folowed swiftly by dirty walls and grimy windows. It was as though an extra house had inflated, pushing those on either side out of its way" (OoP Am. ed. 39). The Muggles next door, naturally, are oblivious, feeling and seeing nothing unusual. So, unlike the house at Godric's Hollow, which was visible even though the Potters inside it were not (until the Fidelius Charm was broken), 12 GP is invisible to anyone who doesn't know the secret. (It also has the protections placed on it by Orion Black, presumably including anti-Apparition--unless you're a House-Elf). Since the house is invisible to Harry in OoP and to the DEs in DH, and since it pushes the other houses aside to make room for itself when its visible, it stands to reason that the steps--all of them--would be invisible, too. All that the DEs can see when Harry misses his step is his elbow sticking out of the cloak for a second as he struggles to catch his balance. So it doesn't seem to matter whether he landed on the first step (the closest to the door and possibly the largest) or the last--it's the Invisibility Cloak, not the Fidelius Charm, that hides him until he enters the invisible hallway through the invisible door. (Which, BTW, explains why the Malfoys, and Bellatrix after she was freed, didn't just show up at 12 GP after they talked to Kreacher. They knew that Kreacher belonged to Sirius and may have guessed that Sirius was hiding in that house, but they didn't know that it was Order HQ and couldn't have see it even if they guessed.) So, Lupin is landing on an invisible step, but he's not invisible himself until he enters the house. So how does he avoid being seen without an Invisibility Cloak for the few seconds it takes to land, regain his balance, and open the door? If Apparating very precisely onto the front step keeps Lupin from being seen (204), why should it matter if Harry's elbow sticks out of the Invisibility Cloak for a second if he's on the top step when it happens? (224). Carol, who thinks she's found yet another inconsistency in the seventh book From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Wed Jan 23 20:53:12 2008 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 23 Jan 2008 20:53:12 -0000 Subject: New poll for HPforGrownups Message-ID: <1201121592.82.81297.w104@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180900 Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the HPforGrownups group: What do you personally consider canon-worthy? When debating your Harry Potter points which of the various materials would you include as canon to make your point? Choose as many as you think are canon. Note: This poll is not intended for policy change on this list o The 7 "Harry Potter and the ...." books o JKR's Encyclopedia (if/when it's published) o JKR's charity books (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Quidditch through the Ages, Beedle the Bard o JKR's website o JKR's notebooks o Only JKR's pre-DH interviews o Only JKR's post-DH interviews o JKR released information that only pertains to backstories she used when writing the seven books o JKR interviews/writings that explain her intent with regards to the story or characters o JKR's projections as to what she thinks will happen after DH and/or what she thinks her characters would do (marriages, careers, etc.) o The Lexicon To vote, please visit the following web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2644935 Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups web site listed above. Thanks! From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Wed Jan 23 20:50:27 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:50:27 -0000 Subject: Squib!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180901 Please can someone sort out a query for me. What exactly is the difference between a squib and a witch/ Wizard?? I have wanted to know that all the way through the series and have never found a good explanation Thank You Jayne From cottell at dublin.ie Wed Jan 23 23:05:37 2008 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:05:37 -0000 Subject: Squib!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180902 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jayne" wrote: > > Please can someone sort out a query for me. What exactly is the > difference between a squib and a witch/ Wizard?? > I have wanted to know that all the way through the series and have > never found a good explanation Magical ability is presented in the series as something which is passed on genetically, like having brown eyes. Just like with brown eyes, if one parent has magical ability, there is a good chance that the child will have it. Magical ability can also appear in children whose parents don't display it (Hermione's an example); there are two possible reasons for this: either a distant ancestor had it, and the gene was passed on, or a random genetic mutation can give rise to it, so you get a magical child with no magical ancestors (this is actually how Hermione's presented - there's no suggestion, as far as I know, that she had a great great great grandmother who was a witch). But since we inherit only half of each parent's genes, it's possible that a child will inherit that half of the parent's genes which *doesn't" contain the "magic" gene. If this happens, you get a child born to magical parents who has no magical ability - that child is a squib. An analogy would be a child born to two red-haired parents, neither of whom passes on the red-haired gene, resulting in the child not having red hair. In cultural terms, squibs aren't like muggles, because they have been raised in wizarding homes and know about the magical world, while much of wizarding society hinges on the Statute of Secrecy, which prevents non-magical people from knowing about the wizarding world. They're then condemned to a sort of neither-one-thing-nor-the-other existence - the only place for them is living on the fringes of wizarding society but unable to play much of a role in it, like Argus Filch and Arabella Figg. It's a sad sort of life, I think. From oscar_v_ascencio at yahoo.com.mx Wed Jan 23 23:07:49 2008 From: oscar_v_ascencio at yahoo.com.mx (oscar oscar v ascencio) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:07:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Squib!!! Message-ID: <696436.92932.qm@web32512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180903 Jayne: What exactly is the difference between a squib and a witch/ Wizard?? I have wanted to know that all the way through the series and have never found a good explanation Hi: Squib is someone that "should" have magic blood (like a son of a wizard family), but for an uncertain reason, can not make any kind of magic even curses or spells. The best example is Mrs Figg (Dursley's neighbor), she has knowledge of the magic world, but also has some "non-magic" genetical stuff (She can't see the Dementors at HBP). Hope it clarifies a little oscar_v_ascencio From ironchefe3 at comcast.net Wed Jan 23 23:53:44 2008 From: ironchefe3 at comcast.net (l.anne120) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:53:44 -0000 Subject: Resurrection Stones Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180904 I'm new to this group, so forgive me if this question has been thoroughly discussed. I'm wondering why Harry didn't see Dumbledore when he engages the resurrection stones. I know we get a big blast of Dumbledore in the "King's Cross" chapter, but when Harry, Ron and Hermoine are discussing the Hallows at Lovegood's house, Harry explains that he would choose the stone because it would bring back the people he loved, no to mention the people whose advice they could use. (He included Dumbledore in his list of people he would like to recall.) It seems like a bit of an omission to leave Dumbledore out of the group that walks with him to his death. Any insight? ironchefe3 From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Jan 24 00:11:27 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:11:27 -0000 Subject: Squib!!! In-Reply-To: <696436.92932.qm@web32512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180905 > Jayne: > > What exactly is the difference between a squib and a witch/ Wizard?? I have wanted to know that all the way through the series and have never found a good explanation. Tiffany: In the canon, a Squib is someone born to magical parents but doesn't develop magical abilities. Squibs are often encouraged to interact & bleng in with the Muggle world as they fit in better than in the Wizard world. They do share some abilities with Wizards, like being able to see the Dementors in HBP, but they're often sent to Muggle schools & taught to integrate themselves into the Muggles' world. The canon itself doesn't do a good job of explaining the Squibs, but what I mentioned above is the nutshell definition of the Squibs. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 00:54:28 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:54:28 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapters 2-5 post DH look Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180906 Here we go again, some old lines that jumped at me in new light, but first couple of unrelated announcements. Zara thank you for reminding me that elves do have families after all and Potioncat, dearest, Snape twins send their love. ;) Harry sat up and gasped; the glass front of boa constrictor's tank had vanished? p.28 Alla: Well, we all know that this is foreshadows Harry's use of Parseltongue, but I am wondering something else right now. He seems to perform vanishing charm here, yes? How difficult it is? Do we know if little ones when they do uncontrolled magic can do basically ANY sort of magic or are they limited to simple magic? Mr. H.Potter The Cupboard under the stairs 4 Privet Drive Little Whinging Surrey" ? p.34 Alla: I am curious if anybody thought for some time that Dumbledore did not know about Cupboard? I used to think so, but luckily I was not thinking so already before DH. But what should we do, Vernon? Should we write back? "Tell them we do not want-"? p.36 Alla: Wait what? In retrospect I just want to kick myself over and over as to how much author seems to hint that Petunia knows about wizards ways. She knows how to write back to those people? Oh, she got a letter just like that and disappeared off to that ? that school ? and came home every vacation with her pockets full of frog spawn, turning teacups into rats. I was the only one who saw her for what she was ? a freak! But for my mother and father, oh no, it was Lily this and Lily that, they were proud of having a witch in the family ? p.53 Alla: I am sure there are people for whom Petunia after DH comes out as much more sympathetic. For me ? not so much, but you know guys how much I love Dursleys and Dumbledore for leaving Harry with them (yes, yes if we do not look at how he dealt with Sirius' situation, I cannot offer another solution, does not mean that I think he dealt with Sirius' fairly. But I can certainly offer a solution of coming back periodically and checking on Harry. Oh never mind, moving on). So, to me Petunia in this quote is not only coming out as jealous, but also jealous hypocrite. Heee, lethal combination. Didn't you want to turn teacups into rats yourself and be a freak too, Petunia? Never mess with Goblins, Harry. Gringotts is the safest place in the world fer anything yeah want ter keep safe ? `cept maybe Hogwarts. ? p.63 Alla: Hmmm, in regards to wizards showing respect to other cultures, I actually see nothing but respect for goblins in this quote. NO, this is not to argue that everybody shows respect ? but to me Hagrid here does. They say there's dragons guardin' the high security vaults ? p.64 Alla: Do you think JKR already envisioned Trio's breaking and riding a dragon in DH when she wrote this sentence? " .. After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things ? terrible, yes, but great." ? p.85. Alla: Harry remembers this statement by Ollivander in DH as we know, but I am still not sure what to make of it. I mean, I am not quite sure what to make out of Ollivander saying it. Is it basically respect of the wizarding power? Is it respect of the wand? Both? Something else? From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 01:02:23 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:02:23 -0000 Subject: Resurrection Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180907 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "l.anne120" wrote: > I'm wondering why Harry didn't see Dumbledore when he engages > the resurrection stones. zanooda: Hi, and welcome. There may be different answers to your question, by I always thought that Harry felt resentful towards DD at that time. Harry just found out from Snape's memories that DD intended for him to die, that he was "raising him like a pig for slaughter". Only in "Kings Cross" Harry learns that DD knew he wouldn't die, that he only wanted Harry to believe that. But as Harry walked through the forest to his death, he believed that DD sacrificed him to the cause without a second thought. He even thinks of "Dumbledore's betrayal", meaning that he believes at this point that DD betrayed him - not exactly the person to call to cheer you up before death :-)! That's how I see it, anyway. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 01:02:57 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:02:57 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might - How Many Steps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180908 ---"Carol" wrote: > >> ... > > Potioncat: > > The first step was covered by the FC. So no one would see > > Lupin or the Trio there. I think the step is visible. Have > > we determined that the house itself is invisible to the > > DEs? > > Carol responds: > > ... > > So, Lupin is landing on an invisible step, but he's not > invisible himself until he enters the house. So how does > he avoid being seen without an Invisibility Cloak for the > few seconds it takes to land, regain his balance, and open > the door? If Apparating very precisely onto the front step > keeps Lupin from being seen (204), why should it matter if > Harry's elbow sticks out of the Invisibility Cloak for a > second if he's on the top step when it happens? (224). > > Carol, who thinks she's found yet another inconsistency in > the seventh book. > bboyminn: So, let me ask Carol, how many steps are there to the entrance to the Black House? One? Two? Three? Five? Seven? Notice that the Black House is what we might call a split level here in the USA, though not exactly. There is nothing on the entrance level but the entrance and associated hallway. You either go up to the general living area or you go down to the kitchen, but does anybody remember anything being on that ground or entrance level? Now, I would suspect that a house that has an entry like this is not likely to have more that two or three steps. This, though quite uncommon, would be a very low entry. Now if you are on the top of two or three steps and the wind catches your cloak, or you lose your balance and your arms swing out, in both cases you could breach the boundary of the Fidelius Charm, and your cloak or hand could be seen, even though the house itself was not reveal. In fact, I think that very thing is referenced in the books. Someone apparates to the top step, loses their balance, and for a second the DE's think they might have seen something, but then it's gone and they can't be sure. It is perfectly possible for the steps to be inside the boundary of the protection charm, but still so very close to the edge that it might be possible to accidently breach the boundary of that charm. Makes sense to me. Though I readily confess I never envisioned an old London house like this having only a couple of step to the entryway. I pictured more the old brownstones typically seen in New York City, with people sitting out on the stoop/steps. Still a short series of step works. Steve/bboyminn From yvaine28 at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 01:17:15 2008 From: yvaine28 at gmail.com (meann ortiz) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:17:15 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Resurrection Stone In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d7223330801231717k47a5be5co14b87d6fe9665074@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180909 l.anne120 wrote: I'm wondering why Harry didn't see Dumbledore when he engages the resurrection stones. zanooda replied: Only in "Kings Cross" Harry learns that DD knew he wouldn't die, that he only wanted Harry to believe that. But as Harry walked through the forest to his death, he believed that DD sacrificed him to the cause without a second thought. He even thinks of "Dumbledore's betrayal", meaning that he believes at this point that DD betrayed him - not exactly the person to call to cheer you up before death :-)! That's how I see it, anyway. My reply: In the Time Magazine Person of the Year interview with JKR ( http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/personoftheyear/article/0,28804,1690753_1695388_1695569,00.html), she was asked: Why doesn't Fred appear in the woods at the end as well? She answered: "...I wanted Harry to be surrounded by his mother and James and Sirius and Lupin, all of whom had died in a way for him. You know Lupin had laid down his life in Harry's battle, he didn't have to come back, he didn't have to fight. James had died trying to protect the family; Sirius very obviously had died fighting along with Harry, and then his mum who most explicitly had died for him. I never thought of bringing Fred back at all. It was all the previous generation, and they were all strongly parental figures for Harry." We can probably argue that, in a way, Dumbledore died for Harry too and died for the Anti-LV cause like Lupin and Sirius. But maybe Jo was thinking along the lines of people whose deaths are tied closely to Harry specifically. But the line between those 4 people who appeared and Dumbledore when it came to Jo's reason for deciding who will appear is kinda blurred for me personally. But that's from Jo's POV. If we look at it from Harry's POV, I think I'll agree with zanooda. Harry resented him, and if I were in his place, I wouldn't really want to see Dumbledore at a time like that either. :D ---*meann [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kaleeyj at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 01:24:22 2008 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:24:22 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapter 1, post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180910 > Alla: > > The first weird thing that jumped at me today is that at some > > point of talking all things Potter I sort of stopped counting > > this chapter as written not from Harry's POV. I mean, it is > > not like I forgot exactly, but pushed back so to speak. Does > > it matter that narrator is more trustworthy here? > > Potioncat: > I think the PoV of or type of Narrator makes a big difference in the > telling and setting up of the story. Of course, we couldn't have had > this chapter from Harry's PoV. All he could see about now was > Hagrid's beard. Bex now: Good point, Cat. :) I still remember the magic of this chapter - I was desperate to figure out what on /earth/ they were talking about. There's nothing like that first read, when Hagrid lowers the boom on Harry and the readers - "You're a wizard." JKR really knows how to hook someone, doesn't she? Carol makes an excellent observation further downthread - JK NEVER goes into the POV of someone who actually knows exactly what's going on. She chooses the most relevant, most inaccurate POV available for the scenes in nearly all of the books, just to keep us off-balance. I think that using a "non-biased" (and I use the phrase loosely) narrator adds to the magic of the story, more than anything. We're hearing something that sounds quite a bit like "Once upon a time, in a small neighborhood in Britain..." We can't help but follow his view of things, and it sets us up to keep following the narrator's point of view (when it changes to Harry later in the story). Without this story (or if this chapter was told in a different way), I think that it would be much less compelling, and we'd probably be slightly less inclined to "follow the leader". > > Alla: > > "It was plain that whatever everyone was saying, she was not going > > to > > believe it until Dumbledore told her it was true" ? p.11 -12 > > > > comments about blind faith... Bex now: Good observation! I never thought of it this way before, but it very clearly demonstrates the amount of trust McGonagall has in DD. She's been hearing murmurs all day since midnight or a little later, but she won't let herself believe them until she hears it from DD. > >Alla: > > " but how in the name of Heaven did Harry survive? > > We can only guess," said Dumbledore. "We may never know" ? p.12 > > > > Alla: > > > > So does this line means that at this point in time Dumbledore does > > not know that Harry is a Horcrux? > > Potioncat: > I don't think he does. I'm sure he has a strong opinion of what went > on, but did not want to share it. In a later post, someone brings up > DD's attitude about the scar. DD knows Tom Riddle was interested in > Horcruxes, and he knows the Dark Lord will mark the chosen one > (cannot recall the words.) So DD must know/suspect the scar will > have some magic. I don't think he suspects Horcrux!Harry until he > finds out from this list--I mean, OoP, maybe? Isn't there some canon > about it in one of the later books? > Bex: Wait.... There are two different things going on here. McG asks how Harry survived - and I don't think DD knows the /exact/ details. Enough so that he can tell McG he doesn't know how without it being a total, direct lie. DD generally bends the truth around backwards, but he doesn't lie very often. As for what happened to Harry (and why he has the scar): I'm with Potioncat on this one. DD has a hint about what happened, and he doesn't want to tip his hand. DD knows about Tom's curiosity about Horcruxes - Slughorn would have told him about the first part of /that/ conversation (that's how DD knew about the memory). When DD asked Sluggy what his reply was, he came up with the edits he gave to DD originally. Though his theory is not proved correct until he sees the full Slughorn memory (HBP, US Paper, p. 499), DD had an idea of what Tom was up to, probably when he heard the scuttlebutt about that question. I think the gleam in GoF is because he just thought that it was possible for Harry to survive even when LV died, and the silver instrument ("in essence divided") indicates that Harry has a bit of Riddle soul in him, though DD can't be positive why it's there until HBP. I essentially see this comment and the scar comment as DD just being cagey. > > > Potioncat: > This is great. I'm looking forward to a post DH re-read myself, and > I'm really glad we're getting the opportunity to discuss the books. > Thanks, Alla! > Bex: Me too! The thing that bugs me in this chapter (and it has fior a couple of books now) is that we see NO reaction at all from DD when Hagrid mentions Sirius. Just "No problems, were there?" Granted, Hagrid /doesn't/ mention Sirius offering to take Harry - he just mentions Sirius lending him the bike. I wish she would have mentioned DD looking at Hagrid oddly or something. If DD really believed that Sirius was the SK, then shouldn't there be SOMETHING after the SK had obviously given the Potter's location away? Too many posts to read... must stop writing... ~Bex From kaleeyj at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 02:33:59 2008 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 02:33:59 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapters 2-5 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180911 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Here we go again, some old lines that jumped at me in new light, but > first couple of unrelated announcements. Zara thank you for > reminding me that elves do have families after all and Potioncat, > dearest, Snape twins send their love. ;) > > Harry sat up and gasped; the glass front of boa constrictor's tank > had vanished? p.28 > > Alla: > > Well, we all know that this is foreshadows Harry's use of > Parseltongue, but I am wondering something else right now. He seems > to perform vanishing charm here, yes? > > How difficult it is? Do we know if little ones when they do > uncontrolled magic can do basically ANY sort of magic or are they > limited to simple magic? Bex: Well, Harry has turned his teacher's wig blue, leaped on top of a tall building, shrunk a sweater, grown his hair back, and that's just what we're told about. In CoS, McGonagall announces that exams are in one week and Neville accidentally vanishes one leg of his desk (granted with a wand). Fred, at the age of 5, turned Ron's teddy bear into aq spider (again, assuming with a wand, but I doubt he knew /how/ to do it.) In GoF, we see a toddler playing with his father's wand, engorging a slug (and we can be pretty sure he isn't thinking Engorgio). It seems like the kids have some pretty stout powers to begin with, especially with a wand in hand. However, in all of Harry's cases, except for the snake incident and possibly the teacher's wig, he is scared or angry - I think that when emotions are running high, more powerful magic is possible - either a more powerful version of the spell you're attempting, or just a powerful spell. So either Harry had a major flash of anger and JK just didn't show it to us, or a vanishing charm on an inanimate plate of glass is not /that/ difficult. I'm going with the latter. Does anyone remember the first time students are instructed to try aq Vanishing charm? > > Mr. H.Potter > The Cupboard under the stairs > 4 Privet Drive > Little Whinging > Surrey" ? p.34 > > Alla: > > I am curious if anybody thought for some time that Dumbledore did > not know about Cupboard? I used to think so, but luckily I was not > thinking so already before DH. Bex: I think that those little details are thrown in the address to make the Dursleys sit up and pay attention. The part that gives me this indication is that the letter is addressed in Hagrid's handwriting (in the US version). Possibly strictly a publisher decision, and we've never seen an addressed Hogwarts letter since, but it seems like DD had that letter addressed specially (a charm to imitate Hagrid's writing, perhaps?). I would expect the letters to have some kind of typeface, or McGonagall's handwriting - not the gamekeepers. I think this is a clever ploy by DD - he knows about the cupboard, and He wants the Dursleys to know that he knows. > > But what should we do, Vernon? Should we write back? "Tell them we > do not want-"? p.36 > > > Alla: > > Wait what? In retrospect I just want to kick myself over and over > as to how much author seems to hint that Petunia knows about wizards > ways. She knows how to write back to those people? Bex: I read this list to remind myself of how DENSE I can be sometimes. :) I never saw that line. But those little exchanges ("Maybe we should write back?", "I'm not sure that will work, Vernon.") show she DOES know a little about the magical world - at least the communication parts. > Oh, she got a letter just like that and disappeared off to that ? > that school ? and came home every vacation with her pockets full of > frog spawn, turning teacups into rats. I was the only one who saw > her for what she was ? a freak! But for my mother and father, oh no, > it was Lily this and Lily that, they were proud of having a witch in > the family ? p.53 > > Alla: > I am sure there are people for whom Petunia after DH comes out as > much more sympathetic. For me ? not so much, but you know guys how > much I love Dursleys and Dumbledore for leaving Harry with them > (yes, yes if we do not look at how he dealt with Sirius' situation, > I cannot offer another solution, does not mean that I think he dealt > with Sirius' fairly. But I can certainly offer a solution of coming > back periodically and checking on Harry. Oh never mind, moving on). > > So, to me Petunia in this quote is not only coming out as jealous, > but also jealous hypocrite. Heee, lethal combination. Didn't you > want to turn teacups into rats yourself and be a freak too, Petunia? Bex: Let's not discuss the "abandon the child with Muggles" business - people start throwing things. ;) I saw this quote as tainted with jealousy from the start. Definitely a case of the green-eyed monster here - glad I'm not dense all the time. > Never mess with Goblins, Harry. Gringotts is the safest place in the > world fer anything yeah want ter keep safe ? `cept maybe Hogwarts. ? > p.63 > > > Alla: > > Hmmm, in regards to wizards showing respect to other cultures, I > actually see nothing but respect for goblins in this quote. NO, this > is not to argue that everybody shows respect ? but to me Hagrid here > does. Bex: You know, I had just the opposite idea. I saw this statement as very stereotypical - "All goblins are greedy, grubby, dangerous critters." But after reading DH, it really seems to have come as a statement of truth if nothing else - all the goblins we meet in the entire series are concerned with possessions and wealth, in some way or another. I can take this statement as respectful now, but not then. > > They say there's dragons guardin' the high security vaults ? p.64 > > Alla: > > Do you think JKR already envisioned Trio's breaking and riding a > dragon in DH when she wrote this sentence? > Bex (I'll try to make this short): I've always wondered a bit about this - JKR planned some of the future books when she wrote the first one. She had the Phoenix feather /brother wands thing worked out to some degree, she knew all about Sirius and Pettigrew and the story of Halloween '81, she had some thoughts about the Horcruxes (like Harry being one), the Snape/James arc, and a host of other things - it;s almost like she had some parts of the books written already, and she filled in the bglanks. It explains why the first three books were so tightly held together - the first one helped write the next two (especially PoA). I always wondered how much of DH was written before she started writing DH - know what I mean? I may go into more detail in a separate thread. In response to Alla - IMHO, JKR had plans to write something like that in the books later in the series - someone would find a dragon in Gringotts and have to deal with it. The flying escape might not have been a detail in the original plan, though I thought it was a nice touch. > > " .. After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things ? > terrible, yes, but great." ? p.85. > > > Alla: > > Harry remembers this statement by Ollivander in DH as we know, but I > am still not sure what to make of it. I mean, I am not quite sure > what to make out of Ollivander saying it. Is it basically respect of > the wizarding power? Is it respect of the wand? Both? Something else? > Bex: I'm might draw some fire here - so be prepared to duck. When you see the impact of a natural disaster (Hurricane Katrina comes to mind right away; The tornadoes that ripped through my area 4 summers ago pop up next), especially when you see it up close and for real, I know I am filled with awe. Not that I wanted it to happen; not like I enjoy seeing a city destroyed and hundred-year-plus trees toppled every which way, narrowly missing my great-grandmother's house (where she doesn't have a storm cellar); but I can't help but respect the power that went into making that happen. I think that's what Ollivander is going at here - someone that powerful and that talented (yes, he was talented), who could hold an entire society in a state of constant fear is a "great" wizard - Ollivander is in fearful awe. It's a testament to the strength of the wizard and the connection he has with his wand that he can do so much. Voldy didn't become the most feared Dark Wizard in decades or more by charisma alone. He's one wicked wizard - and I mean that in every sense of the word. ~Bex, who should stop reading, but will just move on to Runescape if she does. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 02:57:49 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 02:57:49 -0000 Subject: Squib!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180912 Jayne wrote: > > > > What exactly is the difference between a squib and a witch/ Wizard?? > Tiffany responded: > > In the canon, a Squib is someone born to magical parents but doesn't develop magical abilities. Squibs are often encouraged to interact & bleng in with the Muggle world as they fit in better than in the Wizard world. They do share some abilities with Wizards, like being able to see the Dementors in HBP, but they're often sent to Muggle schools & taught to integrate themselves into the Muggles' world. The canon itself doesn't do a good job of explaining the Squibs, but what I mentioned above is the nutshell definition of the Squibs. Carol adds: I agree with Tiffany's first sentence: that is, a Squib is born to magical parents and ought to be magical but isn't. The term appears to be derived from "squib" meaning a wet firecracker that fails to ignite. (It's not clear whether a child with one magical parent and one Muggle parent would also be a Squib. I think so, but I'm not sure.) However, a Squib isn't necessarily sent to a Muggle school and encouraged to become part of the Muggle world (though apparently that was done when Dumbledore and his contemporaries were young). Clearly Mrs. Figg, who blends in with Muggles as a "batty" old neighbor has had contact with the WW all her life. Not only does she know Dumbledore (she was a member of the original Order of the Phoenix) and raise cats who can communicate with her in ways that cats don't communicate with Muggles (JKR says in an interview that Mrs. Figg breeds half-Kneazle cats) but she uses expressions, such as "the cat's amongst the pixies again," that reflect her magical parentage and her immersion in the Wizarding world. Argus Filch, the only other Squib who appears as a character, though others are alluded to, seems to have no connection with the Muggle world. He lives and works at Hogwarts and would like nothing better than to be a normal wizard rather than a failed one. Both of them have apparently tried and failed to use a wand. Filch studies KwikSpell courses and Mrs. Figg says, "I've never so much as Transfigured a tea cup." Culturally and by blood, they're a witch and a wizard who never attended Hogwarts and can't use a wand or brew a potion, so they live on the fringes of the magical world (or, in Mrs. Figg's case, in the Muggle world but maintianing WW contacts). But since, despite their mutual affinity for cats, the ability to see Hogwarts, and an awareness of Dementors (JKR says on her website that Mrs. Figg couldn't see the Dementors; Mrs. Figg says she could. Take your pick), they can't perform magic ("Filch was a Squib and could no more cast a Stunning Spell than he could fly"), they can't qualify as Witches and Wizards. They are not, however, Muggles because of their magical parentage. By blood, they ought to be magical, but for some reason (a mutation, a birth defect, whatever), they can't perform magic. Ron calls them "the opposite of a Muggle-born," who is born magical despite having (two) Muggle parents. A Squib is born nonmagical despite having at least one and more likely two magical parents. (The Squibs whose names are burned off the Black family tree are purebloods who somehow fizzled out and failed to be magical. Carol, who intended to be concise and failed From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 03:12:45 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:12:45 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might - How Many Steps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180913 bboyminn wrote: > > Now, I would suspect that a house that has an entry like this > is not likely to have more that two or three steps. This, > though quite uncommon, would be a very low entry. Now if you > are on the top of two or three steps and the wind catches > your cloak, or you lose your balance and your arms swing out, > in both cases you could breach the boundary of the Fidelius > Charm, and your cloak or hand could be seen, even though the > house itself was not reveal. > > In fact, I think that very thing is referenced in the books. > Someone apparates to the top step, loses their balance, and > for a second the DE's think they might have seen something, > but then it's gone and they can't be sure. > Carol responds: But Harry's hand shows when it slips out from under the Invisibility Cloak. (Ron, IIRC, says that the same thing happens to him every time.) The DEs keep thinking they see something (presumably an elbow or a hand) but it disappears before they have time to be sure that they've really seen something. But *Lupin is not wearing an Invisibility Cloak and yet the DEs don't see him.* That's the discrepancy I see. It doesn't matter whether there's one step or twelve, or how many levels the house has, or where the entrance hall leads. What matters is the cloaks. If Harry's hand or elbow can be seen when it slips out from under the Invisibility Cloak, how come Lupin, who is wearing an ordinary black *traveling cloak,* can't be seen? I can conceive of a hand sticking out beyond the boundaries of the Fidelius Charm, but an elbow? That must be some narrow step! And why bother with the Invisibility Cloak if they can't be seen on the top step, anyway? Carol, using up her fifth post to make her point clearer From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 03:28:34 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:28:34 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180914 > SSSusan: > > I will continue to say I sure wish JKR would have > > given us an alternate term/word/concept for this > Magpie: > > > But I'm glad there isn't an alternate word or concept > > because I think it would just be a euphamism for slave > > owning. > Carol: > JKR may not have supplied an alternate term, but such a term > does exist in English: "servitude." Goddlefrood: There is another, possibly even better, term that could be used, and as the books were certainly not a history lesson, allow me to give a short one. As I'm sure everyone here knows England, and indeed other parts of the benighted isles, formerly operated under the feudal system. Remnants of this can still be ascertained quite easily - there's the great estates, the numerous villages that were originally tied to some manor or other, and where all of the local Lord's wrokers resided etc. These communities had, and to an extent still have, a very strict hierarchy. If the analogy is drawn, as I propose, between the feudal system and the WW, then your wizard to house-elf relationship becomes not one of master and slave, but one of master and vassal. I wonder if that would meet the case and allow us to move forward in this discussion without referring to the elves as slaves. They do, IMO, more closely resemble vassals than slaves, even if there are definitions of vassal around that aver to slave being a synonym of vassal. It most assuredly is not the same at all. My preferred definition would be this: "a person holding a fief; a person who owes allegiance and service to a feudal lord [syn: vassal, liege, liegeman, liege subject, feudatory]" Taken from WordNet 2.1. The parameters for the release of a vassal house-elf are set out in the books. In many ways the house-elf fears release from its vassalage as much as vassals have done. That because there were benefits of being a vassal, such as having the protection of one's lord, housing supplied and in many cases a reasonable stipend. The latter of these was not always the case, and obviously other than Dobby there are no paid elves at all in canon. The above would be complementary to my earlier post on this matter, which equated elves to hobs. Goddlefrood, offering a reasonable alternative word to use and anticipating none would use it ;-) From kaleeyj at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 04:06:37 2008 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:06:37 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180915 > Goddlefrood: > > There is another, possibly even better, term that could be used, > and as the books were certainly not a history lesson, allow me > to give a short one. > > > If the analogy is drawn, as I propose, between the feudal system > and the WW, then your wizard to house-elf relationship becomes > not one of master and slave, but one of master and vassal. I > wonder if that would meet the case and allow us to move forward > in this discussion without referring to the elves as slaves. > They do, IMO, more closely resemble vassals than slaves, even > if there are definitions of vassal around that aver to slave > being a synonym of vassal. It most assuredly is not the same > at all. My preferred definition would be this: > > "a person holding a fief; a person who owes allegiance and > service to a feudal lord [syn: vassal, liege, liegeman, liege > subject, feudatory]" > > Taken from WordNet 2.1. > > The parameters for the release of a vassal house-elf are set out > in the books. In many ways the house-elf fears release from its > vassalage as much as vassals have done. That because there were > benefits of being a vassal, such as having the protection of > one's lord, housing supplied and in many cases a reasonable > stipend. The latter of these was not always the case, and > obviously other than Dobby there are no paid elves at all > in canon. Bex: Excellent - you may have stumbled upon what we need here. The differences I would draw are that the vassals didn't typically live within the same house (though they did occasionally reside within the walls of the lord's castle when danger struck). And generally, vassals got something back out of the deal besides protection - they got land maintained by the landlord (since it was still his property). I don't know how the vassal-lord relationship worked across generations - typically vassals were made vassals through a formal ceremony, and I'm not sure if the arrangements would extend vassaldom to the vassal's children. I think that vassals were more specifically tied to a piece of land than an actual person. Brownies are tied to a house - and more than once Kreacher serves "the house of Black," even without any Black family members there. Perhaps more support for this idea? Elves' masters seem to have less obligation to protect their 'vassals' that feudal lords. But you may have hit the nail on the head. Elf-wizard relations seem more like a feudal relationship than that of straight slavery. Slavery is the first thing we think of when we read about house-elves, but as many readers have argued, it doesn't fit as nicely as it looks at first. > Goddlefrood, offering a reasonable alternative word to use and > anticipating none would use it ;-) > Bex: I hope it catches on. Vasself? feudelf? Or perhaps we need a name for this idea. EVANS, maybe? (Elves: Vassals Are Not Slaves?) I'm all a-quiver with excitement.... From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 24 04:10:11 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:10:11 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapters 2-5 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180916 "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Here we go again, some old lines that jumped at me in new light, but > first couple of unrelated announcements. Zara thank you for > reminding me that elves do have families after all and Potioncat, > dearest, Snape twins send their love. ;) Potioncat: Oh my. I haven't heard mention of the twins in a long time! >Alla: > Mr. H.Potter > The Cupboard under the stairs > 4 Privet Drive > Little Whinging > Surrey" ? p.34 > > Alla: > > I am curious if anybody thought for some time that Dumbledore did > not know about Cupboard? I used to think so, but luckily I was not > thinking so already before DH. Potioncat: You know, I used to think that the letters were magically addressed-- by the castle itself. Or, if anyone wrote the letter it was Professor McGonagall. But, how many times has Harry handed Hedwig a letter and just told her who it was for. So, I'm not sure----Yes. I think DD wrote it, and knew of it. I really do, ever so much more than before, think that DD did what he thought he had to do. I'm not so sure that he had any sort of friendship with James and Lily; and did not have a particular reason to have special affection for Harry. > > Alla: > So, to me Petunia in this quote is not only coming out as jealous, > but also jealous hypocrite. Heee, lethal combination. Didn't you > want to turn teacups into rats yourself and be a freak too, Petunia? Potioncat: Well. Yes. But it's human nature. If you don't get into your first choice of colleges, you convince yourself the one that did accept you was a better fit anyway. You might go so far as to be happy you didn't make a horrible mistake by going to College #1. After all, look at the quality of people they produce! > > > Alla: > > Harry remembers this statement by Ollivander in DH as we know, but I > am still not sure what to make of it. I mean, I am not quite sure > what to make out of Ollivander saying it. Is it basically respect of > the wizarding power? Is it respect of the wand? Both? Something else? Potioncat: I would say that Ollivander was impressed by the magic. Perhaps he doesn't have any qualms about Dark Magic in general. I wonder if Snape had some of the same thoughts---the Dark Lord is doing great things. But there was so much bad going along with any strong magic LV performed...I can't fully understand Ollivander. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 24 04:24:32 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:24:32 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might - How Many Steps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180917 > Carol responds: > > But Harry's hand shows when it slips out from under the Invisibility > Cloak. (Ron, IIRC, says that the same thing happens to him every > time.) The DEs keep thinking they see something (presumably an elbow > or a hand) but it disappears before they have time to be sure that > they've really seen something. > > But *Lupin is not wearing an Invisibility Cloak and yet the DEs don't > see him.* > > That's the discrepancy I see. It doesn't matter whether there's one > step or twelve, or how many levels the house has, or where the > entrance hall leads. What matters is the cloaks. Potiocat: You may be right. This could be a flint. Lupin made it very clear that he had to be careful to land on the top step so he couldn't be seen. I wish I could get the canon. I took it to mean that when Ron and Harry landed, they were unbalanced and they sort of overshot as they regained footing. Or parts of them overshot. I thought they wore the IC so for the mission they were on that moment and to cover any slip-ups as they returned. Did I just write a long me-too to B-Boy's post? To cover slip-ups....Does this make the IC a slipcover? Reminds me of Chair!Slughorn. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 04:27:23 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:27:23 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might - How Many Steps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180918 > > bboyminn wrote: > > > > Now if you > > are on the top of two or three steps and the wind catches > > your cloak, or you lose your balance and your arms swing out, > > in both cases you could breach the boundary of the Fidelius > > Charm, and your cloak or hand could be seen, even though the > > house itself was not reveal. > > > Carol responds: > > But Harry's hand shows when it slips out from under the > Invisibility Cloak. (Ron, IIRC, says that the same thing happens > to him every time.) The DEs keep thinking they see something > (presumably an elbow or a hand) but it disappears before they > have time to be sure that they've really seen something. > > But *Lupin is not wearing an Invisibility Cloak and yet the DEs > don't see him.* Mike: I think Steve has it mostly right. Harry says that he lost his balance AND the IC slipped. So it wasn't just that his elbow (I'm guessing it was his whole arm) slipped out from under the cloak, but that his elbow ALSO stuck out beyond the scope of the Fidelius' boundary. > Carol: > If Harry's hand or elbow can be seen when it slips out from under > the Invisibility Cloak, how come Lupin, who is wearing an ordinary > black *traveling cloak,* can't be seen? Mike: Because Lupin didn't slip. :) > Carol: > I can conceive of a hand sticking out beyond the boundaries of > the Fidelius Charm, but an elbow? That must be some narrow step! Mike: If you want a physics problem, how come the Muggles don't notice that one side of Grimmauld square is shorter than the other side? And how did the Blacks hide the house in the first place? Wouldn't they have had to find every Muggle that had ever seen #12 before it disappeared and obliviate them? Logistical nightmare, that. I find it best not to try and square physics with magic. > Carol: > And why bother with the Invisibility Cloak > if they can't be seen on the top step, anyway? Mike: They are wearing the IC the whole time they're out scouting the Ministry. They aren't going to take it off before they apparate back. > Carol, using up her fifth post to make her point clearer Mike, you can have one of mine, I'm not going to use it :) -< http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180829 >- 7. There was concern over the painful scar Voldemort visions, about Voldemort invading Harry's mind. Why didn't Voldemort ever try to invade Harry's mind? Did the fact that Harry had a scar and that Voldemort presumably did not have anything to do with this? > Carol: > He did try to invade Harry's mind by planting visions in it, and > he must have had some indication of how Harry was reacting or he > wouldn't have known that his vision had succeeded (or the Prophecy > orb had been destroyed). Mike: Anne and I had this discussion back a bit. I've come to accept Anne's explanation that there was some rudimentary communication in the Harry to LV direction. So LV could detect Harry's basic emotions from distance, much like he could tell if someone was lying even if he wasn't looking in their eyes. (Didn't Snape intimate that this was the case, that LV didn't need eye contact to detect a lie?) And when Harry was in an emotionally charged state, like he was in the Atrium facing Bella, possibly more than mere emotions leaked through to LV. But, in the case of the OotP Sirius vision, I was under the impression that Voldemort pictured the scene in his mind for Harry to receive it. IOW, LV wasn't implanting it into Harry's mind, he was implanting it in his own mind for Harry to see. At least, that's the way all the rest of the visions seemed to operate. -< http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180834 >- > DeeDee > Hence we know DD has a scar upon his knee!!(now > we know the reason for this scar)... Mike: Did I miss something? Could you explain why we know the reason for DD'd knee scar? From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 24 04:38:44 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:38:44 -0000 Subject: Filch (was Re: Squib!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180919 > Carol adds: > Argus Filch, the only other Squib who appears as a character, though > others are alluded to, seems to have no connection with the Muggle > world. He lives and works at Hogwarts and would like nothing better > than to be a normal wizard rather than a failed one. Potioncat: Let's think about Argus just a moment. Why is he at Hogwarts? Hogwarts can boast the largest number of House Elves of any establishment in Britain. (Or words to that effect, by Sir Nick.) House- Elves love to clean and they are very good at it. Even fairly young students can perform cleaning spells. At least Hermione could. Though I admit, I doubt wizarding teenagers are any better at cleaning up after themselves than Muggle teenagers. Even a quick "evanesco" does a pretty good job. So, why does Filch have to clean muddy footprints from the Entrance Hall floor, or scrub frog brains from the ceiling of the Potions classroom? You know, he seems a bit like Petunia. Do you suppose he once sent a letter to DD, asking to please be allowed to come to Hogwarts? Potioncat > > Carol, who intended to be concise and failed Potioncat: Yes, but we could tell you did your best. (and every word a good read!) > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 04:40:25 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:40:25 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapter 1, post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180920 Mike: >> >>> "Even if I could, I wouldn't...." <<< p. 15 > > It's that "Even if I could" that set me off. It sounded like > Dumbledore was saying he couldn't heal that cut, prevent that scar. > Why wouldn't Dumbledore be able to heal a simple cut to not leave a > scar? It seemed obvious to me that it *wasn't* a simple cut. There > was more to that cut. > > Now it appears that maybe it was because it was made by an AK, and > like George's ear severed by dark magic, it couldn't be properly > healed either. But I always took it as having something to do with > the entry of a soul piece. Alla: Woa, woa, wait. Now should I praise your prediction powers more than usual? Are you saying that you knew since book 1 that Harry had a soul piece? Because sure I mean the scar was unusual for me as the one that Voldemort left, etc. Dark magic consequence, but nothing more than that for me. You knew? Do tell :) Potioncat: The balance of power seems to ebb and flow with these two. But the wording of the one bit made me wonder, when did Vernon find out about Lily's magic? Alla: Did he ever though? Did he ever in person I mean? By the time they graduated relationship between Petunia and Lily should been sufficiently strained already, yes? And he still seems to know. I am guessing that Petunia just told him. Potioncat: Beautiful wording isn't it? I take it to mean that not only is the person not welcome, but even speaking about him or hearing about him is not wanted either. Alla: When I read sentences like this, I always think that she is quite a good writer ?? Alla: > > Do we see foreshadowing of blind trust that order members have in > Dumbledore already? I mean, we do not know about order members yet > obviously, so I should say teachers. Potioncat: Yep. Sets us up too, doesn't it? Does anyone know when did PUPPETMASTER!DD come about on the list?--and even then many of us thought DD was too noble to be a puppetmaster. We were certainly more questioning than DD's fellow wizards. But it worked well for DD, didn't it? He doesn't like to tell in the first place, and everyone trusted him enough not to ask too much. Alla: I am amazed at how tight and consistent her Dumbledore turned out to be, even if not completely the one I imagined. In regards to Dumbledore I am mostly kicking myself NOT for not seeing his manipulativeness and secretiveness, because boy did I hate some of his actions. Oh NO, I am kicking myself for the general denial, if that makes sense. No matter how many times I wanted to strangle Dumbledore, I still tried to find some other explanations for his actions besides Puppetmaster. OOOPS, but yes I love how hints are given so early. Beatiful if you ask me. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jan 24 04:45:01 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:45:01 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180921 > Goddlefrood: > If the analogy is drawn, as I propose, between the feudal system > and the WW, then your wizard to house-elf relationship becomes > not one of master and slave, but one of master and vassal. I > wonder if that would meet the case and allow us to move forward > in this discussion without referring to the elves as slaves. Magpie: Not for me. They're slaves. Goddlefrood: > They do, IMO, more closely resemble vassals than slaves, even > if there are definitions of vassal around that aver to slave > being a synonym of vassal. It most assuredly is not the same > at all. My preferred definition would be this: > > "a person holding a fief; a person who owes allegiance and > service to a feudal lord [syn: vassal, liege, liegeman, liege > subject, feudatory]" > > Taken from WordNet 2.1. > > The parameters for the release of a vassal house-elf are set out > in the books. In many ways the house-elf fears release from its > vassalage as much as vassals have done. That because there were > benefits of being a vassal, such as having the protection of > one's lord, housing supplied and in many cases a reasonable > stipend. Magpie: House Elves sound far more like slaves than vassals to me. The only "benefits" that house elves get from this set up is that they apparently like being ordered around by another person (except when they don't). They're not being given protection or supplies or stipend. They're not being given any land to work, the WW doesn't have a feudal system. Elf masters don't have to give anything to house elves whatsoever. Bex: But you may have hit the nail on the head. Elf-wizard relations seem more like a feudal relationship than that of straight slavery. Slavery is the first thing we think of when we read about house-elves, but as many readers have argued, it doesn't fit as nicely as it looks at first. Magpie: It seems to me more like slave is the first thing we think of because that's what it is, but since Harry's doing it and slavery is kind of icky-sounding we've got reason to try to find some other word to use. I think the word slavery fits perfectly nicely, just as nicely as it did when Dobby first described his situation. The best thing about vassal imo is that it doesn't have the same negative connotations nowadays that slave does. The argument that the word slavery "doesn't fit" is entirely down to the idea that house elves don't want to have rights or freedom. The difference between a slave and a vassal isn't that a vassal doesn't want freedom or personal rights and likes serving people so you're not really denying him anything he wants. > Goddlefrood, offering a reasonable alternative word to use and > anticipating none would use it ;-) > Bex: I hope it catches on. Vasself? feudelf? Or perhaps we need a name for this idea. EVANS, maybe? (Elves: Vassals Are Not Slaves?) I'm all a-quiver with excitement.... -m (Slaves) From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Jan 24 05:12:50 2008 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:12:50 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH12, Magic is Might In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180922 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Troy Doyle wrote: > > > 1. Were you surprised that the trio were apparating to Grimmauld > > Place on the top outside step and why? > > I had no problem with the idea that the Fidelius Charm would cover not > just the house itself, but also some space around it. However, I think > it would be more logical if not only the top step was included, but the > entire outside stairs, as part of the house. Otherwise, it's not very > clear to me how the rest of the stairs fit in here - are the lower > steps visible then? > > zanooda > Allie: LOL! I know the Death Eaters aren't the brightest bunch, but I think even they would figure out what's attached to a flight of house-less stairs. From funkeginger at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 08:57:15 2008 From: funkeginger at yahoo.com (ginger mabayoje) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:57:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cho Chang In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <156046.45202.qm@web37001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180923 biancawatanabe_123 wrote: The night when Harry, Ron and Hermione went to Hogwarts to find the lost diadem, why was Cho eager to go with Harry to the Ravenclaw's common room? Was it because her feelings came back for him or was it because she just wanted to go with him now that Harry is famous? funkeginger: I think that Cho Chang realy does like Harry still, that it has nothing to do with him being famous. I think that's why Ginny told Harry to go with Luna, it was because she was a little jealous. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 12:02:41 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:02:41 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180924 > SSSusan: > Yep, I think Harry was the warm & fuzzy kind. I also think that he > could be the kind like I described above. *If* anyone in the WW ever > figured out a practical way to free all the house elves so that they > didn't have a bunch of homeless, miserable Winkys, but content, > gainfully-employed or employable free elves, I think Harry would be > all for letting Kreacher go. > a_svirn: Except that Winky is neither homeless, nor unemployed. She belongs to a thriving elvish community, lives in the grandest establishment in the WW, and is treated well, despite the fact that she does not obviously discharge her duties properly. If all she wants is to serve and to belong somewhere then why on earth isn't she happy? Why isn't she buzzing around baking treacle cakes and polishing armour suits? There are plenty of opportunities for her in Hogwarts to fulfil her basic need to serve, aren't there? Apparently, there is more to her misery than just the fact that she's free. Starting from the fact that she wasn't *freed*, but rather *sacked* ? that was the word Sirius used, and he would know the right terminology ? being a pureblood himself. She was dismissed from the service she liked, and dismissed with ignominy. Moreover, unlike Kreacher in OotP and HBP and Dobby she actually loved her masters. Things like that happened in real life all the time. Especially with childless women-slaves, or those who were forced to separate with their children, or those, who were employed as a nurse to their little masters ? and that likely to have been the relationship between Winky and young Barty. Moreover, she worried that she failed her loved ones, and probably even place their lives in danger. Eventually she learned about their pitiful end, and had to live with the knowledge that nothing of these events would have happened if she hadn't been derelict in her duty. That's quite enough to cause severe clinic depression to anyone. Surely it is a bit misleading to ascribe her abject misery to the fact that she's free. a_svirn From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 24 12:25:18 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:25:18 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapter 1, post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180925 > Alla: > > I am amazed at how tight and consistent her Dumbledore turned out to > be, even if not completely the one I imagined. In regards to > Dumbledore I am mostly kicking myself NOT for not seeing his > manipulativeness and secretiveness, because boy did I hate some of > his actions. Oh NO, I am kicking myself for the general denial, if > that makes sense. No matter how many times I wanted to strangle > Dumbledore, I still tried to find some other explanations for his > actions besides Puppetmaster. OOOPS, but yes I love how hints are > given so early. Beatiful if you ask me. Potioncat: >From time to time a Dumbledore scene from an earlier part of the story will come to mind and it will impress me how clearly she had though his character through. She's made him a kindly, sometimes silly person in many ways, yet given him an almost unsavory undertone. The evidence of this amount of thought is why I believe JKR when she says that she always thought of him as gay. I don't think she would have any need to suddenly invent something about him as an afterthought. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 24 12:44:16 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:44:16 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapters 2-5 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180927 > Bex: > I read this list to remind myself of how DENSE I can be sometimes. :) Potioncat: It was that exact feeling after each of the earlier books that had so many of us finding "obvious" clues in the following ones. I mean of course, obvious clues that were no such thing. It generated some amazing theories and the creativity that was demonstrated on this list was as good as the books themselves! There are some Crouch family dynamic threads that would make wonderful books---even if names had to be changed to protect the innocent! > > Alla: > > Do you think JKR already envisioned Trio's breaking and riding a > > dragon in DH when she wrote this sentence? > Bex - it;s almost like she had some parts of the books written > already, and she filled in the bglanks. Potioncat: This is what I'd like to read about. I'd like JKR to write a piece about the creation of the HP story. Not an interview, a history that she puts time and honesty into. I'd love to hear something along the line of, "When I first pictured Gringott's I imagined they would have a captured dragon chained in the vaults to protect the treasures. Later I decided to have Harry make use of it." We know from interviews that she changed some events and characters as the story progressed. But clearly she had a definite goal in sight. That's actually caused an interesting response from fans. Some say that JRK was a slave to her original ideas, and that as the story began to write itself, she should have adapted the characters, story arc, whatever; others say that that if she said after book 3 that something was going to happen in book 5, she shouldn't have changed her mind when the time came around. (Using hypothetical book numbers-- an example is the person who would show magic late in life, an idea she dropped.) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 12:50:54 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:50:54 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180928 Re: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions > Carol: > > JKR may not have supplied an alternate term, but such a term does > exist in English: "servitude." Servitude can be voluntary or > involuntary. In the case of House-Elves, it's usually voluntary. a_svirn: Nope, it is most definitely not voluntary. They are not owned because they want to. They are owned because they have been for centuries and that's the way of the WW. And WW stand for Wizarding World, meaning that they are owned because that's the way of wizards. Moreover, servitude literally means slavery, so the employment of this term wouldn't really resolve anything. The term "voluntary servitude" is actually somewhat of an oxymoron, and was coined by the sixteenth century political philosopher Etienne de la Boetie in order to explain the origins of tyranny. Basically he says that tyrants have power because people give it to them, preferring the slavery of a concubine to the "natural" state of freedom, and therefore, he concludes, they deserve what they get. If anyone in the WW fits the description it is death eaters, not elves. > Carol: > House-Elves exist to serve Wizards. That is their nature, their "end," > their raison d'etre, their be all and end all. They have no other > purpose and no other desire. Their servitude becomes involuntary only > when they hate or despise their masters. a_svirn: Which happens with perfect regularity. And becomes the tragedy of their lives because as a slaves they have no way out. Carol: > So we have the Hogwarts House-Elves, happy in their voluntary > servitude, a_svirn: A but what do we know about them? Do we even know that they are owned? Dobby and Winky aren't. Winky doesn't get paid, but it doesn't look like she's owned either. We know nothing about the elves of Hogwarts to judge. a_svirn From mros at xs4all.nl Thu Jan 24 13:19:06 2008 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:19:06 +0100 (CET) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions Message-ID: <24311.132.229.183.75.1201180746.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> No: HPFGUIDX 180929 I've been reading this discussion for the past few days, and I'm so appalled by some of the arguments that I'm forced out of lurker-dom. The argument apparantly goes like this: "Elves are not slaves because it's in their nature to be servile. They are happy serving wizards. They don't want to be free; look at the appalled reaction of Winky and the Hogwarts Elves to the freed Dobby. You don't want to be a mean wizard and free them all, do you? You'd have desperate, drunk Elves wandering around. Besides, Dobby was a weirdo, an anomaly, and Elves aren't really human after all, so you can't call them slaves. But you're not to abuse them either. You're to be kind to them and let them serve you, fetch sandwiches for you etc (this way they remain happy) and then all will be well." Apart from the excellent points made by Sistermagpie, a_svirn and Betsy (horridporrid) that slavery does not cease to be slavery just because the 'good guys' (aka 'Harry') owns a slave and that according to all definitions of the word 'slave' the Elves are indeed slaves, I want to ask you to look at the way men in Western civilisation have looked unto women until a good hundred years ago (although I bet there are still plenty men - and women - today who think exactly the same. Let's give the microphone to an imaginary Victorian gentleman. "What?! Give women economic FREEDOM? The right to decide their own fate, buy things and property without the consent of her father, her husband or her guardian? Women can't decide for themselves! It would make them UNHAPPY, too. It's a woman's NATURE to WANT to care for a husband, to have his children and nurture them. They wouldn't survive without a husband or a father to guide them. Look at the women who are rejected, sent away by their husbands for their obstinate and uncouth behaviour. Their families will reject them too, and they'll turn up in the gutter, drinking vile gin and more often than not will take their refuge into prostitution. You don't want that for your delightfull daughters, do you? No, ask any respectable woman if she wants to be thrown out of the house and family and they'll tell you how happy they are to care and nurture their own husbands and sons. Of course, their husbands should be kind to her and not abuse her. Yes, such a thing does happen (although we rather not talk about such distasteful things). But, well, what can you do, eh? Luckily, most families are happy and when a man comes home he looks forward to having his darling wife bustling around, fetching his slippers, managing the children and the household, and look how happy she is. Such domestic bliss speaks for itself." And so on and on. And no, I'm not claiming that women are slaves (although throughout history women *were* often chattel), I'm just trying to show how silly the notion is that Elves *want* to be slaves and are appalled at the idea of freedom that this is a legitamite cause of keeping them as slaves. The whole issue should not be 'do Elves want to be slaves', but 'is slavery a good thing or a bad thing'. If you decide that no sentient being should be owned by another, then you have to free all Elves from the enchantment that keeps them in ownership by wizards. Elves could then choose to serve or not. They could choose to obey. What is also necessary is an 'out'. If a Elf would no longer want to serve a certain wizard, and this wizard would sent her away and warn all other wizards that the Elf was a 'bad elf' or such nonsense, the fear of being rejected by other potential employers might force the Elf to obey when he or she would rather not. So there should be an 'safe-house' for Elves. But all this would not be too difficult to arrange. What truly need to change is the *wizards* attitude towards Elves, not the (culture-induced) nature of Elves'. Marion From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 13:53:59 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:53:59 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180930 > Magpie: > It seems to me more like slave is the first thing we think of because > that's what it is, but since Harry's doing it and slavery is kind of > icky-sounding we've got reason to try to find some other word to use. > Alla: No, it is more like some of us (myself, since I cannot speak for aybody else) do not equate it with real world slavery no matter who is doing it Harry or anybody else. I do not feel a need to look for additional word because I feel a need to not think of Harry as slave owner. I feel a need to look for that word, because to me there are enough differences to wish such word should exist no matter how many similarities are there as well( Thank you SSSusan). From falkeli at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 13:52:26 2008 From: falkeli at yahoo.com (hp_fan_2008) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:52:26 -0000 Subject: Patronage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180931 Mike: > A brief synopsis; There are groups of people that are beholden to a cell leader, support and fight that leader's fights. In exchange, the supporters expect the protection of that leader from political intrigue and a relief from having to worry about the general necessities of life, the cell leader assuming the role of provider. In the case of the WW, the cell leader is ensuring their way of life, promoting the things that the underlings find valuable. > I think JKR wrote this type of system when she wrote the series, > whether or not it was done consciously or intentionally. The > corruptness of the Ministry goes hand in hand with the type of > governance you get with a patronage system. > > Her major Patrons were Dumbledore and Voldemort. The minor patrons > were people like Lucius Malfoy, Bartemius Crouch Sr., and with a > lesser cell, Cornelius Fudge. This idea seems to shed some light on the whole Draco/Snape/Bella relationship in HBP: Snape, although really belonging to Dumbledore's patronage, had been pretending to belong to Lucius's. We see evidence of this in the way he treats Draco, in Draco's suggestion that Lucius get Snape to be headmaster, and in Umbridge's statement to Snape in OP (after catching Harry in her fire) that Lucius thinks a lot of Snape. After Lucius was arrested, his position as Patron seems to have been picked up by Bella. When Narcissa goes to Snape to get him to help Draco, Bella comes along to allow her to decide if she wants to keep him. She seems to decide not to, and convinces Draco that Snape is trying to take over Lucius's position with Voldemort. Draco, although convinced that Snape is trying to take over Lucius's position, probably doesn't really trust Bella - and that's why it's so important for him to be Voldemort's favorite. He was willing to get little bits of help from Bella, but none from Snape. However, he didn't quite have what it takes to be directly under Voldemort - the ability to commit a murder. The disagreement between Bella and Lucius over who calls Voldemort in DH, when Harry and his friends were caught, may be a question of who is in charge of the patronage - Lucius believes that "all will be forgiven" - and so he will be Voldemort's favorite again; Bella is unwilling for this to be. hp_fan_2008 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 14:02:52 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:02:52 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180932 > >>Goddlefrood, offering a reasonable alternative word to use and > > anticipating none would use it ;-) > >>Bex: > > I hope it catches on. Vasself? feudelf? Or perhaps we need a name > > for this idea. EVANS, maybe? (Elves: Vassals Are Not Slaves?) I'm > > all a-quiver with excitement.... > >>Magpie: (Slaves) Betsy Hp: I vote to keep "slaves" too. If Goddlefrood (or Bex) could give me an example of how house-elves are *not* slaves (and no, being a "happy" slave doesn't count: Jim was happy with the widow), then I'll entertain the idea that house-elves aren't, well, slaves. This trying to come up with a less loaded word strikes me as ducking the question. It's philisophically lazy, IMO. We have canon proof that Kreacher has *no choice* but to obey Harry. This was established when Harry was first gifted with Kreacher. That complete and utter lack of choice, combined with the slave gaining *nothing* (and I'd love for Carol or SSSusan to explain to me how Harry forcing Kreacher to betray a family he loved met some deep need of Kreacher's) leaves me with no choice but to call a spade a spade. Kreacher is a slave; Harry is his owner. > >>Alla: > > I do not feel a need to look for additional word because I feel a > need to not think of Harry as slave owner. I feel a need to look > for that word, because to me there are enough differences to wish > such word should exist no matter how many similarities are there as > well( Thank you SSSusan). Betsy Hp: Then why are those arguing in support of house-elf slavery using the exact same arguments those in support of African-slavery used back in the day? They're happier as slaves, they're not at all like us and so have different needs, they're really more like animals than anything. (I believe Fredrick Douglas was equated with a dog trained to walk on its hind-legs.) If the situation of house-elves was so different from RL slavery, I'd think the arguments in favor of the institution wouldn't sound so creepily familiar. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 14:12:44 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:12:44 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180933 > > >>Alla: > > > > I do not feel a need to look for additional word because I feel a > > need to not think of Harry as slave owner. I feel a need to look > > for that word, because to me there are enough differences to wish > > such word should exist no matter how many similarities are there as > > well( Thank you SSSusan). > > Betsy Hp: > Then why are those arguing in support of house-elf slavery using the > exact same arguments those in support of African-slavery used back in > the day? They're happier as slaves, they're not at all like us and > so have different needs, they're really more like animals than > anything. (I believe Fredrick Douglas was equated with a dog trained > to walk on its hind-legs.) > > If the situation of house-elves was so different from RL slavery, I'd > think the arguments in favor of the institution wouldn't sound so > creepily familiar. Alla: I cannot answer for anybody else. I just wanted to respond to Magpie's speculating about my supposed reasons for not thinking of it as slavery. I never argued that elves are like animals, but I most certainly refuse to consider them to be RL equivalent of RL slaves, because to me they are not. By virtue of living in a different society if nothing else and of course by the fact that they do like to serve and belong to wizards. It is familiar to you? Great. I see enough differences as well on both sides. After all in the book Swordspoint that I cited before I should call it society of Murderers for hire, since people are being killed left and right there and people who are doing are not murderers for hire, but quite respectable swordsmen. It is society that lives under completely different rules, I mean almost completely than our RW society. I think it is actually on purpose that some arguments sound familiar, it may be to encourage us to not blindly apply our values to this society. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 16:05:57 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:05:57 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapters 2-5 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180934 Bex: However, in all of Harry's cases, except for the snake incident and possibly the teacher's wig, he is scared or angry - I think that when emotions are running high, more powerful magic is possible - either a more powerful version of the spell you're attempting, or just a powerful spell. So either Harry had a major flash of anger and JK just didn't show it to us, or a vanishing charm on an inanimate plate of glass is not /that/ difficult. I'm going with the latter. Alla: Isn't uncontrollable magic in kids only happens when they are scared or angry? Where did I get this from I am not sure, probably interview. But you could be right. Alla: I did not remember, but I looked it up on Lexicon and Minerva teaches Vanishing spell in fifth year transfiguration, so it does seems to be quite complex one to me. Bex: I read this list to remind myself of how DENSE I can be sometimes. :) I never saw that line. But those little exchanges ("Maybe we should write back?", "I'm not sure that will work, Vernon.") show she DOES know a little about the magical world - at least the communication parts. Alla: Oh LOL, we all were dense about many topics and others indeed sometimes helped me to see clearer . I saw that line, just never realized that Petunia indeed knew something. Bex: Let's not discuss the "abandon the child with Muggles" business - people start throwing things. ;) I saw this quote as tainted with jealousy from the start. Definitely a case of the green-eyed monster here - glad I'm not dense all the time. Alla: Oh I can duck really well, no worries, but do not want to give up my slapping targets, sorry. Speaking about jealousy though, I wonder what kind of jealousy you saw. Let me try to explain. Definitely some people speculated that Petunia was jealous way before book 7 came along. If I could only find Debbie's amazing post about Petunia for example, I will be so pleased. I certainly did not see jealousy, BUT I could see the possibility of jealousy inspired by hatred. What I am trying to say is that just as I did not see Snape and Dumbledore conspiring for the Tower, but saw how the clues could be resolved that way, I can see how Petunia could be jealous and hating her sister. What I did not see at all is Petunia being jealous and loving her sister, which we are supposedly told after book 7, yes? Did you see the jealousy inspired by love if that makes sense? Bex: I think that's what Ollivander is going at here - someone that powerful and that talented (yes, he was talented), who could hold an entire society in a state of constant fear is a "great" wizard - Ollivander is in fearful awe. It's a testament to the strength of the wizard and the connection he has with his wand that he can do so much. Voldy didn't become the most feared Dark Wizard in decades or more by charisma alone. He's one wicked wizard - and I mean that in every sense of the word. Alla: Right, so basically what you are saying is that he is respecting Voldie's raw magical power, yes? I totally understand. I mean, I am not agreeing that power in the negative deserves respect, but I guess this is what it is. Potioncat: Oh my. I haven't heard mention of the twins in a long time! Alla: Yes, they are back from vacation and ready to cause mayhem. MAHAHHAHAH. Potioncat: You know, I used to think that the letters were magically addressed-- by the castle itself. Or, if anyone wrote the letter it was Professor McGonagall. But, how many times has Harry handed Hedwig a letter and just told her who it was for. So, I'm not sure----Yes. I think DD wrote it, and knew of it. Alla: Right, for some time I thought that the magical quill who writes the names of the magical kids in the book does the letter addresses as well. Potioncat: I really do, ever so much more than before, think that DD did what he thought he had to do. I'm not so sure that he had any sort of friendship with James and Lily; and did not have a particular reason to have special affection for Harry. Alla: Let the slapping session begin LOL. But I agree that Dumbledore did not have a particular reason to have a special affection for Harry that was made very clear to me From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 24 17:40:05 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:40:05 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180935 > > >>Alla: > > > > I do not feel a need to look for additional word because I feel a > > need to not think of Harry as slave owner. I feel a need to look > > for that word, because to me there are enough differences to wish > > such word should exist no matter how many similarities are there as > > well( Thank you SSSusan). > > Betsy Hp: > Then why are those arguing in support of house-elf slavery using the > exact same arguments those in support of African-slavery used back in > the day? They're happier as slaves, they're not at all like us and > so have different needs, they're really more like animals than > anything. (I believe Fredrick Douglas was equated with a dog trained > to walk on its hind-legs.) > > If the situation of house-elves was so different from RL slavery, I'd > think the arguments in favor of the institution wouldn't sound so > creepily familiar. Pippin: The arguments in favor of the institution aren't exactly the same. No one is arguing that owners shouldn't be deprived of their elves without compensation, or that freed elves would want to mingle socially or marry with wizards, or that they would displace worthier individuals from their jobs or that freeing them would disrupt the economy and throw the WW into collapse. Nor was the idea that slaves are not human ever widespread in our culture, much less considered manifestly obvious to everybody. Since our knee-jerk reactions are based on conditions which only partially resemble those of house-elf slavery, it follows that they may not be appropriate, as Hermione discovered. The trouble is some of the conditions are the same. The situation as of HBP is unfair to the elves, as I think everyone agrees. Thus our moral discomfort with it. But human-prescribed solutions may not be appropriate either. How would we like it if the elves decided that human woes are traceable to our sick need to dominate one another and what we need is to become the enchanted slaves of another race? Marion: If you decide that no sentient being should be owned by another, then you have to free all Elves from the enchantment that keeps them in ownership by wizards. Pippin: Right, and I demand an immediate end to global warming and a rollback of nuclear proliferation, too. The solution you recommend isn't on the table, for the evident reason that no one knows how to accomplish it. It wouldn't be as easy as it sounds. Magically experimenting on house-elves would be no different ethically than using them as poison testers. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jan 24 18:23:30 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:23:30 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180936 > > Magpie: > > It seems to me more like slave is the first thing we think of > because > > that's what it is, but since Harry's doing it and slavery is kind of > > icky-sounding we've got reason to try to find some other word to > use. > > > > > Alla: > > No, it is more like some of us (myself, since I cannot speak for > aybody else) do not equate it with real world slavery no matter who is > doing it Harry or anybody else. Magpie: You're right it's not real world slavery--it's fantasy slavery where the slave is magically compelled to obey you, for one thing. But I haven't seen anybody show that it's actually different than slavery in the way it works. What they've said is that it "feels different" if the slave wants to serve--and that's perfectly true for human slaves as well. Sorry, I don't mean to claim to know someone's innermost thoughts and motives as to why they want a different word. It's just that I don't see how the arguments that it's truly different than slavery (be it slavery by Romans, Americans or Martians) hold up when describing house elves. Since it's the word in the book (as is its opposite: Free) and nobody misunderstands when it's used here or there it seems like there must be some reason that this word is a problem in itself--especially if we can honestly suggest using "vassal" instead. Why not just say, as I think people have for years, "house-elf slavery?" That identifies that we're not talking about slaves in the human population. Supposedly what makes it different is that the Elves' will is always completely in line with serving a master--and in the case of somebody like Harry he's only kept from freeing the slave because the slave doesn't want it. Yet Harry orders Kreacher to do something against Kreacher's will, and Kreacher must obey him. Lucius gives Dobby an order that's against Dobby's will and Dobby must obey him. (Neither Harry nor Lucius allow their Elf to leave him and go to the person he prefers when those elves have expressed a desire to not serve him as master, so the elves can't leave.) But that's not slavery because allegedly Kreacher and Dobby really want to do those things? How does that work? Sure there's this general idea that "they want to be in this situation" but on the individual level we've seen it turn into plain old oppression quickly and easily. The institution is the same, it's only feelings that are allegedly different. Because if the situation was that the house elves seemed like slaves because they cooked and cleaned for people but actually were free to leave whenever they wanted (without needing some magical release on the part of the Wizard like being given clothes) and only served when they wanted to, then I'd be happy to not use that word. Actual brownies, for instance, I would not call slaves just because they serve people. Giving the wages offends them so they decide to leave on their own, it doesn't free them. But in canon it seems in every case like the cultural differences at play here have nothing to do with making it not slavery--nobody within the culture even argues such a thing that I remember. Here's Ron the Pureblood with Hermione in GoF: "You know, house-elves get a *very* raw deal!" said Hermione indignantly. "It's slavery, that's what it is! That Mr Crouch made [Winky] go up to the top of the stadium, and she was terrified, and he's got her bewitched so she can't even run when they start trampling tents! Why doesn't anyone *do* something about it?" "Well, the elves are happy, aren't they?" Ron said. "You heard old Winky back at the match...'House-elves is not supposed to have fun"...that's what she likes, being bossed around." Now, Hermione happens to be wrong about what Crouch has done to Winky here. He hasn't bewitched Winky not to be able to run--and Harry was wrong in thinking her being unable to run was because she didn't ask permission to leave. However, this is a mistake about things Crouch has done, not Crouch's power. He could very easily have ordered her not to be able to leave. And what's the reaction of Ron, the Pureblood? He gives the exact same response argued here: They're happy. They like being bossed around. He's not challenging that it is slavery, he's saying that for elves, that's what they want. They don't have the same problems living under that system that Hermione would. (And Ron only has a Wizard's understanding of the word.) The differences lie in how the enslavement is enforced and how it's viewed imo. The institution fits all the requirements for regular slavery only with a magical component, and that's considered mutually beneficial rather than a bad thing. It's culturally approved slavery. You can fully support the system and think it's the most responsible and compassionate thing for house elves while still thinking it's slavery. -m From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 18:27:46 2008 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:27:46 -0000 Subject: Filch (was Re: Squib!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180937 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Carol adds: > > Argus Filch, the only other Squib who appears as a character, though > > others are alluded to, seems to have no connection with the Muggle > > world. He lives and works at Hogwarts and would like nothing better > > than to be a normal wizard rather than a failed one. > > Potioncat: > Let's think about Argus just a moment. Why is he at Hogwarts? *snip* Beatrice Responds: I always thought that Filch's position at Hogwarts was a bit like Hagrid's in a way. He is a squib who desperately wants to be part of the magical community (hence the magical correspondence course in CoS), just a Hagrid is a half-giant who is expelled from Hogwarts and by rights is exiled from the magical community. As a half-giant, Hagrid could not become a part of the muggle world, perhaps Filch is a misfit in his own right as a squib and Dumbledore takes pity on them both and allows them to have positions within Hogwarts. Thus, both characters can remain in a "safe" environment that they are fimiliar with and have some contact with the wizarding world where neither truly belongs. This perhaps is most important, because it demonstrates DD's compassion toward those who are outcasts in the WW world and sets the stage for the cracks in the utopian community early on demonstrating the bigotry and intollerance that lies just beneath the surface of this society. The character of Filch is also important to the plot of the novel. Filch is an obstacle to the night time wanderings of the trio, he is the anthesis and nemesis of the Weasley twins (with whom he is frequently at odds) in addition to introducing us to "squibs" who are an important class (if you will) in the wizarding world. Thus JKR can introduce the idea of squibs early on to Harry and the reader. The idea of Squibs is important when we think about Gran's initial treatment of Neville and how she supects he "might not be magic enough to attend Hogwarts." (SS/PS). Also, Mrs. Figg is a squib and Merlop is a kind of squib by default. Merlop may have magical ablilities, but she is religated to a squib like state by the abuse that she suffers. Also JKR indicated that she originally intended to have a cousin of the Weasleys (who would be the daughter of a Weasley squib cousin) in the novels. I believe that she was supposed to be introduced in GoF? Finally, as the person who cleans up parts of the castle, perhaps Filch can accomplish cleaning that houseelves might have to reveal themselves to the students to achieve. eg. it is easy for a house elf to sneak into the dorms when students are in class or at meals to tidy up, but they can't clean the entrance hall in the middle of the day without being visable to all. Perhaps, Filch in a way is also someone who can generally oversee the houseelves and act as a go between if you will between the elves and the rest of the staff. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 18:39:35 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:39:35 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180938 > >>Alla: > > It is society that lives under completely different rules, I mean > almost completely than our RW society. > I think it is actually on purpose that some arguments sound > familiar, it may be to encourage us to not blindly apply our values > to this society. Betsy Hp: I've never liked that aspect of the prime directive *g*: to see behavior that I deem as not good behavior, but I'll just let it go because who am I to judge? I do agree with the idea that I can't just swoop in with my superior armies and completely remake a society. But I do feel I can judge or apply my own personal values. What use are my values unless I actually use them? (For a RL example: I think female circumcision is an abominable practise that speaks very ill of those societies that allow or encourage the practice. It's not my society, but I feel quite free, and in fact almost duty bound, to judge such behavior.) > >>Pippin: > The arguments in favor of the institution aren't exactly the same. > No one is arguing that owners shouldn't be deprived of their elves > without compensation, or that freed elves would want to mingle > socially or marry with wizards, or that they would displace > worthier individuals from their jobs or that freeing them would > disrupt the economy and throw the WW into collapse. Betsy Hp: Right, those are arguments *not* being used. And it makes sense that no one is looking at the issue of house-elf slavery through an economic lens. The WW doesn't seem to rely on their slaves for their economy (which means they have less of an excuse for continuing the practice than the US did back in the day). But the arguments being made for house-elves remaining slaves *for the sake of* the slaves are what those who supported African slaves argued back in the day. Africans are child-like and simple and in need of European supervision. Work is good for them. They love it. Where would they go if freed? Etc. > >>Pippin: > Nor was the idea that slaves are not human ever widespread in our > culture, much less considered manifestly obvious to everybody. Betsy Hp: Oh, sure it was. Eugenics was all about it. Africans were supposed to be a step (or three or four) below Europeans on the evolutionary scale. They didn't feel pain like Europeans. Didn't love their children like Europeans. Didn't have the intelligence or the desire for freedom like Europeans. Scientists wrote all sorts of papers that were taken very seriously purporting to prove all those ideas true. Of course, house-elves are definitely not human. But I think they're as near animals as goblins, giants or veelas. All three creatures near enough to humans biologically-speaking to produce fertile offspring from cross-species breeding. (I'm assuming Hagrid can have children, anyway.) Their level of sentience is certainly above that of animals. Per the rules of scifi anyway, house-elves count as essentially human. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient#Science_fiction Which is why it's interesting to me to read the arguments in favor of keeping a sentient race enslaved. And why they strike me as pretty familiar. > >>Pippin: > How would we like it if the elves decided that human woes are > traceable to our sick need to dominate one another and what we need > is to become the enchanted slaves of another race? Betsy Hp: To anyone familiar with scifi, this is exactly what will eventually happen. Worms *always* turn. (The current Battlestar Galactica deals with exactly this issue.) It's why, despite Harry's assurance that all is well, I expect the WW will rupture into destructive violence sooner rather than later. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 18:44:15 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:44:15 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180939 > Magpie: > You're right it's not real world slavery--it's fantasy slavery where > the slave is magically compelled to obey you, for one thing. But I > haven't seen anybody show that it's actually different than slavery > in the way it works. What they've said is that it "feels different" > if the slave wants to serve--and that's perfectly true for human > slaves as well. Alla: To me they did say more than that, it just seems that the differences that were pointed out are not enough, well that's fine too. It just for me the differences did not dissappear because of that. I am not inclined to debate whether elves like it enough to be difference or not, but Here is one IMO huge difference that Goddlefrood pointed out - real life slaves are traded, elves are not. So here is a distinction between RL slavery right there, staring at us. You will say it is not enough? Okay, but to me it just adds to the idea that while it may LOOK like slavery, I wish there was a different word. Magpie: > Sorry, I don't mean to claim to know someone's innermost thoughts > and motives as to why they want a different word. Alla: Good. Magpie: It's just that I > don't see how the arguments that it's truly different than slavery > (be it slavery by Romans, Americans or Martians) hold up when > describing house elves. Alla: So, the fact that they cannot be traded does not count as a difference either? Magpie: Since it's the word in the book (as is its > opposite: Free) and nobody misunderstands when it's used here or > there it seems like there must be some reason that this word is a > problem in itself--especially if we can honestly suggest > using "vassal" instead. Why not just say, as I think people have for > years, "house-elf slavery?" That identifies that we're not talking > about slaves in the human population. Alla: I would even take a word slavery with SOME sort of qualifier, that this is not a human slavery disguised as something else. That there is SOMETHING different about it, that there is a different world, different values and different creatures involved, NOT an Aslan thing going on. Magpie: Actual > brownies, for instance, I would not call slaves just because they > serve people. Giving the wages offends them so they decide to leave > on their own, it doesn't free them. Alla: So, what about hobbs? ( spelling?) The creatures that Goddlefrood mentioned before as well? Would you call them slaves? because they seem to me to not being able to leave their locations as well? So, here we have ( if I understood about them correctly) creatures that cannot leave their locations whatsoever. Looks to me like they were an inspirations for house elves together with brownies. Brownies can leave but like to serve, those creatures seem to not be able to leave even ( I never heard of them before, contrary to brownies). Are they slaves to you? I see a folklor creatures that have very little to do with slaves. And about Hermione calling them slaves, isn't it the whole point, I thought, to show that she was not correct? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 18:53:57 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:53:57 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180940 > Betsy Hp: > I've never liked that aspect of the prime directive *g*: to see > behavior that I deem as not good behavior, but I'll just let it go > because who am I to judge? Alla: I am not sure about the meaning of this sentence, but just to be clear what I meant - that JKR encourages us, I certainly do not have a right to encourage you or anybody else to do anything. Betsy: I do agree with the idea that I can't > just swoop in with my superior armies and completely remake a > society. But I do feel I can judge or apply my own personal values. > What use are my values unless I actually use them? (For a RL > example: I think female circumcision is an abominable practise that > speaks very ill of those societies that allow or encourage the > practice. It's not my society, but I feel quite free, and in fact > almost duty bound, to judge such behavior.) Alla: Yep, I also freely apply my personal values, continue to do so, when I for example call what Snape and Neville's Uncle does to Neville to be despicable child abuse. But when I do so, I AM applying my personal values and it does not seem to reflect what WW society thinks about it. > From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Jan 24 20:21:07 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:21:07 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions References: <24311.132.229.183.75.1201180746.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <005d01c85ec6$a7cdb130$6501a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180941 > I've been reading this discussion for the past few days, and I'm so > appalled by some of the arguments that I'm forced out of lurker-dom. snip > I want to ask > you to look at the way men in Western civilisation have looked unto women > until a good hundred years ago (although I bet there are still plenty men > - and women - today who think exactly the same. snip > And no, I'm not claiming that women are slaves (although throughout > history women *were* often chattel), I'm just trying to show how silly the > notion is that Elves *want* to be slaves and are appalled at the idea of > freedom that this is a legitamite cause of keeping them as slaves. > > The whole issue should not be 'do Elves want to be slaves', but 'is > slavery a good thing or a bad thing'. > Marion Shelley now: I disagree that it's a mere matter of deciding whether or not slavery is a good thing. Take two instances- women's rights, as you mentioned here, and the history of blacks in the United States. The economic and social-political conditions must be right to change on a grand scale the rights of a people group. For women, it took the World Wars for the men to be removed from positions so that the women could replace them in order for men to see that "yes, some women do have brains, and can do these jobs as well as men can!" Some women resisted the shoved back into the subservient, dominated role they had served previously because they got a taste economically of what it was to have a job and be paid for it, versus the non-paid work that is being a mere mother and wife. Now take blacks- it took more than just a civil war and proclamation by a President to make black men free in American society- it took many years after that of riot, lawsuits, political reform, scandal and tensions before black men started being treated like equals in society as a whole. Many more black men and women died in the reform period than died when they were slaves. It took reformation in work-place rules, reformation in education and many other areas of society to fully make "freedom and equality" work as the theory says it would. Now back to house elves- you aren't going to change a house-elf's opinion, overnight, that he or she is PROUD to serve a wizarding family just as her family had done for centuries. Nevermind how "you" (generalized, or Hermione, or anyone else championing the rights of the house elves) think it is immoral and demeaning- the fact is the WW society functions well with house elves, the same way that the American economy functioned well with Black Slavery, and that families in general function well when you have a stay-at-home mom dedicating herself to the family needs. It's a moral judgment to say that house elf slavery is wrong, but just like Winky being told by the other house elves to get a life and serve her new master (Dumbledore, or Hogwarts) well, you aren't going to change their opinions overnight, and neither would a WW wide proclamation that all masters must "employ" their house elves (i.e. pay them!) really make House Elves free and equal to any other in that society. The blacks were stuck in poverty and no options for many years of not being able to get jobs that paid, or when they were paid, it was a pitiful lump of next-to-nothing. Some slaves rightfully said that as individuals, they had more respect and power being a slave than they did as freedmen, thrown out of the street with nothing to their name. Is it right to force that kind of change on house elves against their will? It's one thing for us to say "we think they should be free" and quite another if the cry of freedom was coming from within the rank of the house elves themselves, so that we were merely agreeing with them. The idea wasn't coming from the house elves themselves. Even Dobby is a bad example- he got sacked, and made the very best of his sacking. No one would hire him- and he wasn't championing the right of all house elves to be free- he was arguing "FOR HIMSELF ONLY" the idea of payment. He found a master who was willing to let him take a smaller pay- notice that DD offered him "equality", and Dobby himself rejected that as "too much". You can't ignore what the house elves themselves wanted, no matter how badly you want to insert your own moral judgment into that equation. To do so disrespects all the house elves who would say their lives would be make miserable by your meddling. Like it or not, the WW isn't ready for that kind of change, and my guess is it wouldn't be ready for it for many years. It's my guess that it would take a big economic change in the WW economy to force the change of House elf slavery/servitude perceptions. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 20:30:10 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:30:10 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180942 > Betsy: > I do agree with the idea that I can't > > just swoop in with my superior armies and completely remake a > > society. But I do feel I can judge or apply my own personal > values. > > What use are my values unless I actually use them? (For a RL > > example: I think female circumcision is an abominable practise > that > > speaks very ill of those societies that allow or encourage the > > practice. It's not my society, but I feel quite free, and in fact > > almost duty bound, to judge such behavior.) > > > Alla: > > Yep, I also freely apply my personal values, continue to do so, when > I for example call what Snape and Neville's Uncle does to Neville > to be despicable child abuse. > > But when I do so, I AM applying my personal values and it does not > seem to reflect what WW society thinks about it. > > a_svirn: Doesn't it? I seem to remember that everyone except perhaps his own Slytherins regarded Snape with various degrees of dislike. Even Fudge was profoundly shocked by Snape's conduct! So would anyone in our culture who would witness that scene. Snape had the reputation of an unfair teacher ? so he would in our culture. He was considered as of something of a bully ? so he would be in our culture. As for *abuse*, I don't think that this is a correct term, but not because it means something different in the WW. I think it means something different in our culture. a_svirn From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Jan 24 20:44:33 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:44:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions References: Message-ID: <007801c85ec9$ed8e69f0$6501a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 180943 > Alla: > I am not inclined to debate whether elves like it enough to be > difference or not, but Here is one IMO huge difference that > Goddlefrood pointed out - real life slaves are traded, elves are > not. So here is a distinction between RL slavery right there, > staring at us. Shelley: I have a problem with the idea that House Elves are not traded, or with the idea that they are not sold. We are told directly that only wealthy families own them, and that right tells me that the original house elf slaves might have been bought somehow, and that their price must be high. Otherwise, wouldn't poor families get them too? Wouldn't the children of House Elves seek out new families to serve if they were not bound to a master in true slavery? Why only the rich get to have them? Unless, of course, it's the house elf choice to choose the largest mansions to clean, or chose only the most well known and respected wizards as masters, and that leads them to choose the rich only to serve, as a status symbol among other house elves. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 21:06:29 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:06:29 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: <007801c85ec9$ed8e69f0$6501a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180945 > > Alla: > > I am not inclined to debate whether elves like it enough to be > > difference or not, but Here is one IMO huge difference that > > Goddlefrood pointed out - real life slaves are traded, elves are > > not. So here is a distinction between RL slavery right there, > > staring at us. > > Shelley: > I have a problem with the idea that House Elves are not traded, or with the > idea that they are not sold. We are told directly that only wealthy families > own them, and that right tells me that the original house elf slaves might > have been bought somehow, and that their price must be high. Otherwise, > wouldn't poor families get them too? Wouldn't the children of House Elves > seek out new families to serve if they were not bound to a master in true > slavery? Why only the rich get to have them? Unless, of course, it's the > house elf choice to choose the largest mansions to clean, or chose only the > most well known and respected wizards as masters, and that leads them to > choose the rich only to serve, as a status symbol among other house elves. > a_svirn: We simply do not know whether they are traded or not, so I don't think it really can be used as an argument. And even if that were true it is not so different from the real life slavery. Slavery comes in varieties. For instance, though in 1807 slave trade was banned in the British Empire, slavery itself was not abolished in the British colonies for another couple of decades. a_svirn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 21:06:55 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:06:55 -0000 Subject: Different values of Snape/ Re: House elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180946 > a_svirn: > Doesn't it? I seem to remember that everyone except perhaps his own > Slytherins regarded Snape with various degrees of dislike. Even Fudge > was profoundly shocked by Snape's conduct! So would anyone in our > culture who would witness that scene. Snape had the reputation of an > unfair teacher ? so he would in our culture. He was considered as of > something of a bully ? so he would be in our culture. As for *abuse*, > I don't think that this is a correct term, but not because it means > something different in the WW. I think it means something different > in our culture. Alla: I seem to remember that nobody in the position of authority ever acknowledged that anything that Snape did to Neville was anything other than normal. Oh Trio was unhappy sure, I am talking about adults here. I will be more than happy to be wrong here. I am also specifically not talking about Snape and Harry, I think it is an abuse as well, but at least it is acknowledged that hating Lily's son because he is Lily's son is wrong. No, I am talking about acknowledging that Snape, heck, not even abuser, that he is abusing his authority towards non Harry students other than Slytherins. And to me that is the indication of different values of that society, which I passionately hate. Those values I mean, but no I do not remember anybody taking Snape to task for what he did to Neville. And as I said, the question of Neville's uncle to me is also an indication that we are talking about very different society, where throwing the kids out of the window to test their magical power is okay. Alla, counts to five and dissappears From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 21:14:28 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:14:28 -0000 Subject: Different values of Snape/ Re: House elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180947 > Alla: > > I seem to remember that nobody in the position of authority ever > acknowledged that anything that Snape did to Neville was anything > other than normal. Oh Trio was unhappy sure, I am talking about > adults here. I will be more than happy to be wrong here. a_svirn: He hasn't actually *done* anything to Neville. He called him names and bullied him, yes. Do you think that if someone asked Dumbledore, "Headmaster, do you think that a teacher has a right to call a student "idiot boy"? Dumbledore would say "But assuredly he does. That's a fine old Hogwarts tradition". a_svirn From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 21:44:15 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:44:15 -0000 Subject: House elves, surprisingly ;-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180948 In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180932 > >>Goddlefrood, offering a reasonable alternative word to use > > and anticipating none would use it ;-) > >>Bex: > > I hope it catches on. EVANS, maybe? (Elves: Vassals Are Not Slaves?) > >>Magpie: (Slaves) Betsy Hp: I vote to keep "slaves" too. If Goddlefrood (or Bex) could give me an example of how house-elves are *not* slaves (and no, being a "happy" slave doesn't count: Jim was happy with the widow), then I'll entertain the idea that house-elves aren't, well, slaves. Goddlefrood: Well, you see, I'm not and have never argued that house-elves are not slaves, as indicated in post #178858. Therein I had said: "That both are slaves - a working definition of which would be a being that works for a master without payment - is not really an issue." The both being house-elves and humans. What I have been doing is pointing out that there are certain differences between real world slaves and those of the fictional world of Harry Potter and offering alternatives to the words being used (whether or not I agree with my own posts). Those include that house-elves are not human, there is no evidence from the books as to house-elves being traded (relocated, yes, but not traded). I have also pointed out that the elves are based at least in part on hobs. Hobs are creatures that are tied to a location, and that point will be returned to later on. In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180943 Shelley: I have a problem with the idea that House Elves are not traded, or with the idea that they are not sold. We are told directly that only wealthy families own them, and that right tells me that the original house elf slaves might have been bought somehow, and that their price must be high. Goddlefrood: That's a lot of mights. They might have had a huge market at the beginning of wizard time where all the house-elves then alive were auctioned off to the highest bidder. The folklore behind elves would suggest otherwise. Whether elves are based on hobs or brownies or a combination of both (as seems likely), I think they are supposed to be tied to a location as well as to a family. It makes sense that if a house-elf family originally belonged to a particular location then that house-elf family would attach itself to any wizarding family that resided nearby. As this happened many centuries ago it further makes sense that the older wizarding families would have an elf. That older families also tend to be the richer and higher strata familes in a society is not an unreasonable proposition and is generally (although not always) true. That hobs resided out in the less inhabited parts of the benighted isles, as did and do wizards, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the older wizarding families would have an elf / hob attached to it as its, well, slave ;-). We also have no information on how house-elves came to be enslaved (and the use of that word iks canonical - pace Dobby in CoS). I suggest that they were enslaved to assist with the hiding of the wizarding world from Muggles. They became resigned to their lot on the whole, all bar one (Dobby). A program of re-education would be needed in order for the elves to change their mindset from one akin to a slave to one that embraces freedom. As stated ad nauseam by many, the wizards should be the ones to take the initiative in freeing the elves as there is no movement within the elfdom to free themselves. So, there's no need to think that house-elves were originally bought, that's the thing. In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180945 a_svirn: We simply do not know whether they are traded or not, so I don't think it really can be used as an argument. Goddlefrood: Of course it can, and what is set out above is just as reasonable as any other argument being put forward. Quite simply, however, we don't and can not know the origins of house-elves because there is too little information in canon to help draw adequate conclusions. Any argument is viable, iow. Goddlefrood, out to prove nothing, just discussin' From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 22:40:09 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:40:09 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180949 > Goddlefrood the prevaricator: > They (house-elves) do, IMO, more closely resemble vassals > than slaves, even if there are definitions of vassal around > that aver to slave being a synonym of vassal. It most > assuredly is not the same at all. My preferred definition > would be this: > > "a person holding a fief; a person who owes allegiance and > service to a feudal lord [syn: vassal, liege, liegeman, liege > subject, feudatory]" > > Taken from WordNet 2.1. Goddlefrood the indecisive: What this ignores, and what assuredly will be pointed out by others in response to post #180978, is that the majority of definitions of the word vassal refer to it being the same as slave. (It just has a kinder ring to it). Some of those definitions: "2. A subject; a dependent; a servant; a bondman; a slave." >From 1913 Webster "3. In aftertimes, this word was used to signify a species of slave who owed servitude, and was in a state of dependency on a superior lord." >From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) Moby Thesaurus words for "vassal": bondmaid, bondman, bondslave, bondsman, bondswoman, captive, chattel, chattel slave, churl, client, concubine, creature, debt slave, dependent, feudal, feudatory, flunky, follower, galley slave, hanger-on, helot, homager, inferior, lackey, liege, liege man, liege subject, minion, myrmidon, odalisque, peon, retainer, serf, servant, servile, slave, stooge, subject, subordinate, subservient, theow, thrall, tributary, underling, understrapper, villein, yeoman Goddlefrood the befuddled: So, there are a whole number of words that we could use other than slave, vassal being simply one of them. Countering myself before someoine else does :-) From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 00:07:04 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:07:04 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic resolutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180950 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180889 > > a_svirn: > That looks a bit too selective for objectivity. SPEW's only one > of many elves subplots. You dismiss Dobby as an oddity, but SPEW > is an oddity too. Hermione is quite comically wrongheaded in her > approach to the problem, on many levels: practical, theoretical, > ethical. SPEW on the whole can be more easily dismissed, than the > existence of a free elf. Mike: You're right and that's a fair point. Hermione was an oddity. Though it does appear that Harry would initially have agreed with her on the "slavery is bad" issue alone, if he could cut through the rest of the foolish SPEWishness. It was more my take on the elf issue that I looked at Hermione's "free them all" as the starting point of the main house elf story line. That's my reading, FWIW. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180936 > > Magpie: > You're right it's not real world slavery--it's fantasy slavery > where the slave is magically compelled to obey you, for one thing. > But I haven't seen anybody show that it's actually different than > slavery in the way it works. Mike: But that is the difference, Magpie. It's fantasy slavery, house elf slavery, not real world human slavery. That's why I'm not willing to attach real world values to it, nor condemn the wizard slave owners like I would real world slave owners. It doesn't work *exactly* the same, humans weren't enchanted to be slaves, slave humans were sold, bought, traded, not bound magically to a family/homestead, human slaves didn't have magic that they couldn't use without their master's permission, and the vast, overwhelming majority of human slaves would not have eschewed freedom because it was an insult to their being. My way of reading the house elves is that they are magical creatures with this imperative to serve humans and human households. NOT that they were compelled to do so by humans, manufactured by humans, or otherwise forced to be slaves by humans. That house elves as slaves is a natural condition for them in every sense of the word "natural". I have no proof of my opinion, that's just the way I read enchantment. That they are slaves for the same reason that merpeople are aquatic beings, they just are. > Magpie: > What they've said is that it "feels different" if the slave wants > to serve--and that's perfectly true for human slaves as well. Mike: Well, not exactly. What I'm saying is that house elf slavery in the Wizarding World should not be judged and held to the same standards as human slavery in the real world. That's my opinion based on the way I read the story. I'm not saying slavery is a good thing or a bad thing in the WW. It just is, it exists as a fact of nature. > a_svirn: > How about OotP? Kreacher's subplot was crucial there, and > Kreacher did not want to be owned by his master, he even > rebelled against him. Mike: It's never been who the master is for me. Kreacher didn't want freedom, he wanted a different master. But the key here is that he never considered himself NOT to be a slave. Heck, even the freed Dobby says he can chose who to serve now. But notice he didn't say he could chose NOT to serve, just who. The way I read that is that elves have always served, from the beginning of their time. YMMV. > Magpie: > Why not just say, as I think people have for years, > "house-elf slavery?" That identifies that we're not talking > about slaves in the human population. Mike: As I've said, that term works for me. But I understand the search for a new word. Take the moving stair cases in Hogwarts. One walks up and down them like stairs, one moves to a different floor with them, and other than the cool headmaster's circular escalator, one must provide one's own propulsion. All just like regular stairs. Except they are enchanted to move, so one doesn't end up at the same place every time after one takes the same stair case. I don't have another name for them besides "stairs", but they don't have all of the same qualities as real world stairs. So simply calling them stairs seems lacking to explain all that they are, they don't *exactly* equate to real world stairs. > Magpie: > The differences lie in how the enslavement is enforced and how > it's viewed imo. The institution fits all the requirements for > regular slavery only with a magical component, and that's > considered mutually beneficial rather than a bad thing. It's > culturally approved slavery. Mike: Yes, I think you've got the essence of it. That magical component is critical and is also what makes it culturally acceptable in the WW. The mutual benificity is certainly helpful on that score, but it's more the fact that that magical component precludes any other relationship, imo. The enforcement feature, self-punishment, could and should be changed, since that was the additional thing added by wizards - again, all my opinion. That's the way I read Dumbledore's complaint of the way wizards have treated elves. YMMV, again. > Magpie: > You can fully support the system and think it's the most > responsible and compassionate thing for house elves while > still thinking it's slavery. Mike: I don't disagree. Like I said before, wizards are stuck with elves as natural born slaves regardless of their personal moral convictions. Therefore, it becomes their moral imperative to remove the draconian measures imposed in the past, a road that I believe Hermione was shown to be heading down. NOT to try to impose their cultural norms to elves that simply can't survive under those norms, the road Hermione had originally started down. That's my reading, that seems consistant with canon in my opinion. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 01:25:39 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:25:39 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: <24311.132.229.183.75.1201180746.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180951 Marion Ros wrote: > > I've been reading this discussion for the past few days, and I'm so appalled by some of the arguments that I'm forced out of lurker-dom. > > The argument apparantly goes like this: "Elves are not slaves because it's in their nature to be servile. They are happy serving wizards. They don't want to be free; look at the appalled reaction of Winky and the Hogwarts Elves to the freed Dobby. Carol responds: All of which is perfectly canonical, right? You forgot to include Winky's devastation at being "freed" (fired) by the Wizard that she still loves and regards as her master. Marion: You don't want to be a mean wizard and free them all, do you? You'd have desperate, drunk Elves wandering around. Carol responds: This statement is a bit of an exaggeration. However, we do know that Dobby wandered, homeless and jobless, for a year or more (end of Cos until some point during GoF) looking for a Wizard family that would pay him and finding none. We don't know how he survived, but it could not have been a comfortable life. Had Winky not joined him soon afterwards, going with him to Hogwarts, she would have been in an even worse plight. You would think that working for Dumbledore--paid employment with ideal working conditions (if you're a House-Elf) would make her happy. Instead, she quickly becomes a miserable drunk. "Freedom" for her amounts to disgrace, not to mention that she longs to be reunited with her beloved master. Had it not been for Dumbledore, "freedom" might have meant starvation for both of them. What would happen to the Elves of Hogwarts if they were suddenly "freed"? Would they just keep their jobs as if nothing had happened and refuse wages, time off, and clothes (the mark of a disgraced House-Elf), in which case "freedom" is meaningless? Or would they be magically evicted from Hogwarts because their connection to it was severed, in which case they'd be in exactly the same houseless, jobless state as the wandering Dobby of the PoA year, perhaps in some cases becoming as miserable as Winky? (Not drunk, however, unless they had access to butterbeer.) If not, please state what you think would happen if the "slaves" were "freed." Marion: > Besides, Dobby was a weirdo, an anomaly, Carol: As indeed he was. No other Elf in canon aspires to be free. Even Harry says, "Dobby was weirder" when Ron says of the not-yet "freed" Winky, "So that's a House-Elf. Weird, aren't they?" Marion: and Elves aren't really human after all, so you can't call them slaves. Carol responds: They aren't human. They're half human size. They have huge eyes, no hair (unless you count ear hair), tennis-ball sized eyes, and noses like snouts or tomatoes. They have different powers from Wizards (including wandless nonverbal magic). They are no more human than Centaurs or Merpeople. Slavery is the condition of one human being owning another human being. RL slavery exists and can exist in no other form. We are talking about imaginary beings here, not people. And so far as I can see, they have no other purpose and no other desire than to serve Wizards. (Please show me canon evidence to the contrary if you can find it. Even the "Free Elf" Dobby continues to serve Wizards, Dumbledore for the low wages he talked DD into giving him--DD originally offered too much money--and Harry by choice.) Conflict occurs only when the Wizard abuses the House-Elf (Dobby) or when the House-Elf cannot or will not respect a master he regards as unworthy (Kreacher). A happy, devoted House-Elf who is suddenly "freed" (Winky) creates problems of another sort, with "freedom" being far worse from the House-Elf's perspective than working for a master whom she was proud and honored to serve. This is not slavery. It's either voluntary (willing) or involuntary (unwilling) servitude. And a House-Elf *can* disobey his master, so long as he punishes himself for the disobedience. *That's* where the problem comes in, as Hermione points out in "Kreacher's Tale." Marion: > But you're not to abuse them either. Carol responds: Surely you agree on this point--that House-Elf abuse is wrong and should be discontinued, even outlawed if possible? No one on this list is saying that the Malfoys had the right to abuse Dobby or even that Sirius Black had the right to treat Kreacher contemptuously (despite provocation from the dirty, disrespectful devotee of the Family Black). House-Elf abuse is no more desirable than child abuse, animal abuse, or any other form of abuse. Marion: > You're to be kind to them and let them serve you, fetch sandwiches for you etc (this way they remain happy) and then all will be well." Carol responds: You're looking at the end of the book, at a point when Harry has just defeated an enemy who has terrorized the WW on and off for nearly thirty years. The House-Elf question (assuming that anyone except Hermione cares about it) is not on the table. The only question for Harry at this moment is what to do with the House-Elf he unwillingly inherited, who has now transferred his allegiance to Harry. And since House-Elves *like* to work (as Dobby states and as we see via the Hogwarts House-Elves), *why not* ask him for a sandwich, which he can make much more easily than Harry, being able to Apparate in and out of the Hogwarts kitchen? He's good at it, he enjoys it, he would be honored to serve. He might even be insulted if "Master Harry" attempted to get his own sandwich. And he would certainly be offended, if not broken-hearted, if Harry "freed" (fired) him. He's not a Hogwarts Elf; 12 GP is his home. I have no doubt whatever that he wants to return at the first opportunity and serve Harry there. (When Harry's not home, he can have cozy chats with his dear old mistress.) Seriously, imagine the distress that Harry would inflict on Kreacher by "freeing" him. He would probably go mad, and he would certainly not find employment elsewhere. Marion: > I want to ask you to look at the way men in Western civilisation have looked unto women until a good hundred years ago (although I bet there are still plenty men - and women - today who think exactly the same. > And no, I'm not claiming that women are slaves (although throughout history women *were* often chattel), I'm just trying to show how silly the notion is that Elves *want* to be slaves and are appalled at the idea of freedom that this is a legitamite cause of keeping them as slaves. Carol responds: The problem is, women, as you state, are not slaves. More important, they *are* human, so the arguments that your imaginary Victorian gentleman spouted are spurious. House-Elves, however, are *not* human. Their nature, so far as we can see from canon, *is* different from human nature. So arguments that are invalid when applied to women are not necessarily so when applied to imaginary, nonhuman creatures that *canonically* like work and, so far as we see, work only for wizards. (Granted, problems occur when and Elf and its master are mismatched, but switch Dobby for Kreacher in CoS and they might both be happy.) > Marion: > The whole issue should not be 'do Elves want to be slaves', but 'is slavery a good thing or a bad thing'. Carol: We've covered this ground already. Surely, what House-Elves want is more important than the term used to describe their relationship to Wizards. To disregard what the House-Elves want is to impose the will of Wizards upon them. That way unhappiness lies. Whether the condition of the House-Elves is slavery or not is one of the key points we're debating. You can't just take that point for granted. Nor is their any point in arguing that *human* slavery is bad. No human being has the right to compel another human being to serve him. No one on this list is disputing that point. The question is, if House-Elves are compelled by their nature or by some long forgotten enchantment to serve human beings, and if they like doing so (except under unusual circumstances, as with Dobby and Kreacher), why not make the best of the situation? Why not give the House-Elves what they want, the opportunity to work for Wizards they respect under optimum conditions (no abuse, no self-punishment if it can be avoied, clean tea towels and sleeping quarters, clean beds, decent working hours)? They don't want clothes (the mark of a disgraced Elf) and most of them don't have any use for money (Dobby buys socks and Winky, evidently, squanders her wages on butterbeer). The Hogwarts House-Elves appear to represent the ideal, in contrast to Dobby, Kreacher, Winky, and possibly Hokey. Why not replicate those conditions and make the House-Elves happy, in contrast to "freeing" them, which, as we see in canon, would make them miserable? Marion: If you decide that no sentient being should be owned by another, then you have to free all Elves from the enchantment that keeps them in ownership by wizards. Carol: And exactly who is going to decide that, assuming that the enchantment can be broken for all House-Elves at once? And what about the consequences, if the House-Elves are suddenly homeless? Marion: > Elves could then choose to serve or not. They could choose to obey. Carol: Could they make such a choice? You're assuming human psychology. Maybe, unless conditions are as extreme as they were with Dobby and the Malfoys, a House-Elf simply *can't* disobey, either by nature or conditioning. I'm willing to bet that most House-Elves would choose to go on exactly as they were. And I'm betting that they *wouldn't* choose to be fired (as human employees who disobey an order generally are). They'd rather be good House-Elves and make the Wizards happy, which is what House-Elves *do.* Think about it. A "free" House-Elf disobeys an order and is dismissed from his position, or he chooses not to serve a particular Wizard and has to search for another one. We have a word for that, and it isn't "freedom." It's "unemployment." I doubt that many House-Elves would choose that option. Marion: What is also necessary is an 'out'. If a Elf would no longer want to serve a certain wizard, and this wizard would sent her away and warn all other wizards that the Elf was a 'bad elf' or such nonsense, the fear of being rejected by other potential employers might force the Elf to obey when he or she would rather not. So there should be an 'safe-house' for Elves. But all this would not be too difficult to arrange. What truly need to change is the *wizards* attitude towards Elves, not the (culture-induced) nature of Elves'. > Carol: Well, at least you see that "freeing" the Elves would produce some potential problems and could not be done all at once. But I don't see you suggesting that House-Elves would choose to do anything except serve Wizards, as they've always done. The thing is, we don't *know* that House-Elves' nature is "culturally induced." (Isn't that a contradiction in terms, in any case?) We don't know whether the enchantment that binds them to a particular family is breakable through anything except giving them clothes. And giving clothes to a House-Elf who regards clothing as the mark of a disgraced Elf is simply not going to work. There are good reasons why SPEW failed. One is the attitude of the Wizards, as you say. But the main reason is the attitude of the House-Elves. The Hogwarts House-Elves are happy. They like their work. They don't want to be free. That's canon. And they don't care one way or another what label human beings want to place on their servitude. Why not let them be what they want to be, whether that means making Harry a sandwich or willingly following Draco without sleep, as the "Free Elf" Dobby did? Carol, who thinks that "they aren't human" and "they like working for Wizards" are the key components that we should be considering, and that imposing freedom on them against their will has already been shown to be both unworkable and undesirable From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 03:00:55 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:00:55 -0000 Subject: Patronage and Snape's Role In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180952 > hp_fan_2008 > > This idea seems to shed some light on the whole Draco/Snape/Bella > relationship in HBP: > > Snape, although really belonging to Dumbledore's patronage, had > been pretending to belong to Lucius's. We see evidence of this in > the way he treats Draco, in Draco's suggestion that Lucius get > Snape to be headmaster, and in Umbridge's statement to Snape in > OP that Lucius thinks a lot of Snape. Mike: I definitely agree with your assessment of the Lucius-Severus dynamic. In fact DH just confirmed it for me when we see how Lucius welcomed Severus to the Slytherin table. Lucius undoubtedly learned from his father how this system works and was on the lookout for new recruits. Clearly, Snape started out his DE days as a Lucius underling, and continued that ruse even as a spy. Lucius seemed to have an eclectic group under him. Crabbe and Goyle seemed to be more like muscle men, whereas Lucius was a money man, looking to buy favors at the Ministry. I think his "spot of Muggle torture" was the fun Voldemort allowed him. LV certainly wasn't opposed to it and why not combine making Lucius happy with creating some terror for the Ministry to deal with? Perhaps Crabbe and Goyle enjoyed it too. As for Snape being in Dumbledore's patronage, in a broad sense that seems to be true. He even admits having Dumbledore's protection to Bella, of course telling her that it's part of a ruse. It's only because of this relationship being undercover that makes it look like it doesn't have that feel of a true patronage. It almost seems to be more mentor-student, but then again, who says that can't exist within this system? > hp_fan_2008 > > After Lucius was arrested, his position as Patron seems to have > been picked up by Bella. When Narcissa goes to Snape to get him > to help Draco, Bella comes along to allow her to decide if she > wants to keep him. Mike: I have a slightly different take on this. I do think Bella had her own sub-cell before she went to Azkaban. Her cell members probably got absorbed by other cell leaders or were imprisoned with her. So she saw Lucius's imprisonment as her chance to take over an established patronage. But, but, I think Snape, as Lucius's top lieutenant, has become the de facto leader of his patronage. He may not want the job, but like the problem with Kreacher, he can't let it go to Bella. Before DH, I wouldn't have believed that Dumbledore would sacrifice the life of an Order member to consolidate Snape's position here with Voldemort. After the seven Potters set-up, I now believe it was entirely possible that Emmeline Vance gave her life for just that purpose. Bella wants Lucius's old leadership position, so she has to discredit Snape. She does her best in "Spinner's End" in front of Narcissa. She has probably already started to work on Draco. Hence the reason Draco sees Snape as trying to supplant his father. Bella has planted that conclusion in Draco's mind, and armed him with some rudimentary Occlumency so Snape doesn't think it's anything other than Draco's idea. "Draco blames me, he thinks I have usurped Lucius's position." > hp_fan_2008 > > [Bella] convinces Draco that Snape is > trying to take over Lucius's position with Voldemort. Mike: Which Snape hasn't yet, at the start of HBP, but certainly has after HBP. Poor Bella could see the writing on the wall and had no way to erase it. > hp_fan_2008 > > Draco, although convinced that Snape is trying to take over > Lucius's position, probably doesn't really trust Bella - and > that's why it's so important for him to be Voldemort's favorite. Mike: Also, since patronages are often handed down from father to son, Draco probably wants his father's patronage back in the family. He figures the "glory" he'll get from killing Dumbledore will restore the family name and the family patronage. I'm sure he's willing to use Auntie Bella's help and advice to that end. But I agree with you, he probably doesn't trust her all that much and doesn't want to see his inheritance lost to his mother's sister. > hp_fan_2008 > > The disagreement between Bella and Lucius over who calls Voldemort > in DH, when Harry and his friends were caught, may be a question > of who is in charge of the patronage - Lucius believes that "all > will be forgiven" - and so he will be Voldemort's favorite again; > Bella is unwilling for this to be. Mike: Oh, good catch! I'd bet that when Snape was given Hogwarts, he was put in charge of the Carrows and had to relinquish any control of the Malfoy cell. Not a real problem for even a true DE, since obviously Snape has become Voldemort's number two. But that left the newly released from prison Lucius and the looking to regain her position Bella to fight over who was going to be in charge of Lucius's former cell. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 04:09:33 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:09:33 -0000 Subject: Patronage and Snape's Role In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180953 Mike wrote: > I do think Bella had her own sub-cell before she went to Azkaban. Her cell members probably got absorbed by other cell leaders or were imprisoned with her. Carol responds: Her "cell members" became her cellmates when they were arrested for Crucioing the Longbottomw into insanity. Or Rodolphus did, with Rabastan and the rapidly succumbing Barty Crouch Jr. having cells of their own nearby. Carol, serious and tongue in cheek at the same time From aceworker at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 05:20:26 2008 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:20:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Weasley Cousins (Mafalda) was Filch was Squib Message-ID: <402685.61998.qm@web30204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180954 << snip from Beatrice, emphasis mine>> The character of Filch is also important to the plot of the novel. Filch is an obstacle to the night time wanderings of the trio, he is the anthesis and nemesis of the Weasley twins (with whom he is frequently at odds) in addition to introducing us to "squibs" who are an important class (if you will) in the wizarding world. Thus JKR can introduce the idea of squibs early on to Harry and the reader. The idea of Squibs is important when we think about Gran's initial treatment of Neville and how she supects he "might not be magic enough to attend Hogwarts." (SS/PS). Also, Mrs. Figg is a squib and Merlop is a kind of squib by default. Merlop may have magical ablilities, but she is religated to a squib like state by the abuse that she suffers. Also JKR indicated that she originally intended to have a cousin of the Weasleys (who would be the daughter of a Weasley squib cousin) in the novels. I believe that she was supposed to be introduced in GoF? >> Da Jones here: That last bit gave me a brainstorm Beatrice. Does anyone remember when JKR said something to the effect that someone would attempt magic late in life. This was said in an interview by JKR sometime around POA. At this time she still intended to include the Weasley Cousin Mafalda in GOF. A lot of us speculated before DH that this person would be Filch or Figg; but as we all know this didn't happen and later JKR said she changed her mind. I expect that this 'change' happened during her rewrite of GOF in which she cut the Mafalda story line and instead created Rita Skeeter. Where do you think the Mafalda story line was orignally planned to go? I think this is all pure spect mainly based on my impressions from the other eventual story lines in the novel and the fact that in retrospect all her romances were pretty transparent. 1) Mafalda's father the accountant squib was the planned squib who would have performed magic late in life in a desperate attempt to either save his daughter and muggle family from a Death Eater attack in book 7. Or possibly in an effort to save his cousin Arthur who we know was planned to be killed in book 5. 2) Mafalda over the course of the series would have gradually become estranged from the Slytherins of her house and gradually come over to the Wealsey's side. She might have sort of made friends with Nott and a few other less rabid Slytherins though. But she would have maintained a whip smart nasty wit throughout and largely sidelined Pansy except as a competitor for Malfoy (see 4 below). She also would have been a member of the inquistorial squad or been a DA member and have been the traitor instead of Marietta. 3) The short but emotional scene in DH where Ginny is trying to comfort the possible dying little girl during the final battle in DH (she seems even younger then Ginny to me), might have been a scrap left over from a scene in which Ginny was trying to comfort her dyiing cousin, who proved her Weasley genes by refusing to leave just like Ginny. (A side point: My other theory on this is that it is another tribute by JKR to Natalie MacDonald as the dialogue to me sadly sounds to me like the words of a cancer patient at their last.). 4) She wouldn't have died though as the epilogue would have had be Mafalda Malfoy. Her name is a dead give away that this would have been the case I think. JKR likes to do that with names. 5) By cutting Mafalda JKR greatly cut the 'Slytherins who fight for Harry' angle and made it much more difficulkt to believe her assertions that Slytherins came back. 6) Conclusion: Although Rita Skeeter is an interesting character inspired by rue events in JKR life, the series overall greatly suffered due to the lack of the Mafalda storyline. Although like JKR saids Mafalda probably wasn't beleivable in her planned role in GOF because she was to young for the part, this was due I think to JKR not introducing her early enough. The idea was probably sound. Ideally JKR should have brought in her in during COS. and thus made her the same age as Ginny and only one year younger then Malfoy. This would also allow the romance with Malfoy. It would have been interesting to see Mafalda's reactions to Ginny dispaering. JKR talks about Mafalda being a rival to Hermione, but she would have been much more interesting as a rival to Ginny. Maybe even for a time for Harry affections and Ginny could have perhaps tried to steal Malfoy in revenge. But that'sa ll fan fiction speculation. Unless JKR ever does a rewrite of the series (HP 2.0) and she finds a way to work in Mafalda this is all futile spec, but I think Ginny as a character really siffered for the lack of a foil, which Mafalda couild have been. At the conclusion of the novel Ginny seems half complete to me, as even does Draco(he's missing his other half). Taking out Mafalda might not have been a mistake within GOF due to the circumstances as JKR described them, but I think it was for the overall series. I would love to see JKR post some of Mafalda's deleted scenes on her website. For all her careful planning JKR might have slipped up here. Mopsy on the other hand was a good cut. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 07:46:37 2008 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:46:37 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180955 > > >>Alla: > > > > It is society that lives under completely different rules, I mean > > almost completely than our RW society. > > I think it is actually on purpose that some arguments sound > > familiar, it may be to encourage us to not blindly apply our values > > to this society. > > Betsy Hp: > I've never liked that aspect of the prime directive *g*: to see > behavior that I deem as not good behavior, but I'll just let it go > because who am I to judge? I do agree with the idea that I can't > just swoop in with my superior armies and completely remake a > society. But I do feel I can judge or apply my own personal values. > What use are my values unless I actually use them? (For a RL > example: I think female circumcision is an abominable practise that > speaks very ill of those societies that allow or encourage the > practice. It's not my society, but I feel quite free, and in fact > almost duty bound, to judge such behavior.) Kemper now: I'm fond of the prime directive, and I would agree with Alla if every Witch/Wizard came only from a Witch/Wizard family. But Harry and Hermione come from 'RL', they come into Wizard society with some history of slavery (I'm guessing this... maybe British education system doesn't address this issue as much as the American education system). Once Hermione realizes the House Elf situation, she's determined to do something about it... at least for a book. Harry, attending 'RL' public schools for 5 or so years, must have had some introduction to the concept of slavery (again, this American is assuming), yet he's not really bothered by being an owner of a sentient being. On Betsy's side note: Male circumcision is abominable as well. It is a needless medical procedure that hurts the baby boy. If when the boy gets older and wants to be circumcised, he could elect to go under the knife when he's no longer a minor. It is cruel. Kemper From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 12:45:55 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:45:55 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic resolutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180956 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180936 > > > > Magpie: > > You're right it's not real world slavery--it's fantasy slavery > > where the slave is magically compelled to obey you, for one thing. > > But I haven't seen anybody show that it's actually different than > > slavery in the way it works. > > Mike: > But that is the difference, Magpie. It's fantasy slavery, house elf > slavery, not real world human slavery. That's why I'm not willing to > attach real world values to it, nor condemn the wizard slave owners > like I would real world slave owners. a_svirn: And what if it is? Goblins with their contempt for private property are nothing like real life bankers either. Still we recognise them as bankers. Elves aren't human, but they are still slaves. They fact that they seem to have a powerful urge to serve is no excuse for putting them under legal and magical constraints. Or, rather, it is exactly what it is ? an excuse, a justification for slavery. > Mike: It doesn't work *exactly* the > same, humans weren't enchanted to be slaves, slave humans were sold, > bought, traded, not bound magically to a family/homestead, human > slaves didn't have magic that they couldn't use without their > master's permission, and the vast, overwhelming majority of human > slaves would not have eschewed freedom because it was an insult to > their being. > > My way of reading the house elves is that they are magical creatures > with this imperative to serve humans and human households. NOT that > they were compelled to do so by humans, manufactured by humans, or > otherwise forced to be slaves by humans. a_svirn: We *know* that they are constrained by humans. It is a fact of canon. Kreacher was constrained by law and by magic to be a slave of someone he doesn't want to serve. So was Dobby. Winky was likewise constrained, only she didn't mind the fact because she loved her owners. > > a_svirn: > > How about OotP? Kreacher's subplot was crucial there, and > > Kreacher did not want to be owned by his master, he even > > rebelled against him. > > Mike: > It's never been who the master is for me. Kreacher didn't want > freedom, he wanted a different master. But the key here is that he > never considered himself NOT to be a slave. Heck, even the freed > Dobby says he can chose who to serve now. But notice he didn't say > he could chose NOT to serve, just who. The way I read that is that > elves have always served, from the beginning of their time. YMMV. > > a_svirn: It isn't about who the master is for me either. It is about the freedom of choice. And withholding this freedom is what slavery is about. You keep saying that elves are slaves because they want to serve, as if it were some sort of an axiom, but in fact, they are slaves because they are OWNED. If Kreacher is free choose whom to serve he is no longer owned, ergo he's no longer a slave. He is free-e. And that's precisely what he wanted in OotP and HBP, even if he didn't say it in so many words. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 13:08:24 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:08:24 -0000 Subject: Patronage and Snape's Role In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180957 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > hp_fan_2008 > > > > This idea seems to shed some light on the whole Draco/Snape/Bella > > relationship in HBP: > > > > Snape, although really belonging to Dumbledore's patronage, had > > been pretending to belong to Lucius's. We see evidence of this in > > the way he treats Draco, in Draco's suggestion that Lucius get > > Snape to be headmaster, and in Umbridge's statement to Snape in > > OP that Lucius thinks a lot of Snape. > > Mike: > I definitely agree with your assessment of the Lucius-Severus > dynamic. In fact DH just confirmed it for me when we see how Lucius > welcomed Severus to the Slytherin table. Lucius undoubtedly learned > from his father how this system works and was on the lookout for new > recruits. Clearly, Snape started out his DE days as a Lucius > underling, and continued that ruse even as a spy. a_svirn: Well, Percy welcomed Harry and Hermione to the Gryffindor's table. It doesn't mean that they started their days in Hogwarts as Percy's underlings. > Mike: > As for Snape being in Dumbledore's patronage, in a broad sense that > seems to be true. He even admits having Dumbledore's protection to > Bella, of course telling her that it's part of a ruse. It's only > because of this relationship being undercover that makes it look like > it doesn't have that feel of a true patronage. a_svirn: Yes, indeed, Dumbledore's relationship with Snape was rather like patronage. Just like his relationship with Lupin, Hagrid and probably Fletcher. They all needed his influence and political clout even to survive as free members of the WW, let alone to advance. > > hp_fan_2008 > > > > The disagreement between Bella and Lucius over who calls Voldemort > > in DH, when Harry and his friends were caught, may be a question > > of who is in charge of the patronage - Lucius believes that "all > > will be forgiven" - and so he will be Voldemort's favorite again; > > Bella is unwilling for this to be. > > Mike: > Oh, good catch! I'd bet that when Snape was given Hogwarts, he was > put in charge of the Carrows and had to relinquish any control of the > Malfoy cell. Not a real problem for even a true DE, since obviously > Snape has become Voldemort's number two. > > But that left the newly released from prison Lucius and the looking > to regain her position Bella to fight over who was going to be in > charge of Lucius's former cell. a_svirn: And what it has to do with patronage? If anyone is a patron in this situation (though I don't think it is a correct term) it is Voldemort, not Lucius or Bellatrix. And of course Snape was in charge of the Carrows ? he was a headmaster, after all. If you remove the word patronage out of the argument it would still be valid. Lucius was a prefect, and perhaps, unlike Percy a popular one, Snape was a headmaster and the Carrows were his subordinates. Narcissa came to Snape out of desperation, and because he was an old friend and, perhaps owed Lucius a flavor or two. It all can be easily explained without this patronage business. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 25 13:10:47 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:10:47 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapter 1, post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180958 Carol: Vernon, however, > provides his own explanation--she looks shocked and angry because they > normally pretend that she doesn't have a sister (7). Potioncat: Stepping out of the topic (PoV) for a moment. How does Vernon's thoughts about Petunia's sister in SS/PS fit with what we know in DH-- -that Petunia had sent a vase to Lily? Everything in this book makes us think that both Vernon and Petunia feel the same way toward Lily. I wonder if that's true? How many witches and wizards did Petunia actually know? She spent a fair amount of time as a child with Lily and Severus. How well did she know James? My point being, did she expect young Harry to be like young Severus? Carol: Her tactic keeps us from knowing too much > too soon, and, occasionally, keeps us wrong-footed, so that we > misinterpret the actions and words of characters other than the pov > character along with him, especially when the pov character is Harry. Potioncat: I would think that JKR had to think the PoV very carefully, she had 7 secret-filled books write. There were characters who were keeping secrets from each other; JKR was keeping secrets from the readers; Sometimes the readers were told more than the characters, and sometimes less. > > Carol: astounded to have produced seven long paragraphs in response to > Potioncat's summons Potioncat: Who sat down and wrote a longer reply to your lovely post---then realized I'd had done no more than repeat your points. So I've deleted everything but the two sections above. I'll add this question, (not just to Carol) Does JKR's use of PoV change over the course of the 7 books. Has she used it differently in DH than in SS/PS? Does her use of PoV in chapter one of DH work the same way it does in SS/PS? From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 14:07:36 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:07:36 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic resolutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180959 > >>Mike: > > But that is the difference, Magpie. It's fantasy slavery, house > > elf slavery, not real world human slavery. That's why I'm not > > willing to attach real world values to it, nor condemn the wizard > > slave owners like I would real world slave owners. > > Betsy Hp: I think that may be the difference between those of us who read or watch a lot of fantasy and/or scifi stuff and those of us who don't? Because one of the fun bits of those genres is to take something from the RW, stick into a foreign atmosphere and then look at the various implications. IOWs, in scifi and fantasy, fantasy slavery *always* informs on RW slavery. Just as the blood bigotry of the WW was meant to inform on RW bigotry. (I'm not going to get into how well JKR did on either point. *eg*) > >>a_svirn: > It isn't about who the master is for me either. It is about the > freedom of choice. > Betsy Hp: EXACTLY! *bg* It has nothing to do with the type of work, the type of wages (if any, in the end), or the way in which a house-elf feels pride or job-satisfaction. A house-elf *cannot* say no to their master. It doesn't matter what they're asked to do, it doesn't matter what their personal feelings are on the matter, a house-elf CANNOT SAY NO. In that sense, house-elves are greater slaves than could ever be achieved in the RW. > >>Kemper: > > But Harry and Hermione come from 'RL', they come into Wizard > society with some history of slavery (I'm guessing this... maybe > British education system doesn't address this issue as much as the > American education system). > Betsy Hp: I have no idea on the coverage of slavery in Britain (I'm betting it's not nearly as comprehensive as the US just by virtue of it being so much further removed), but yes, there's an overlap into the RW that makes it even harder to make the "different society, different values" argument. Part of the charm of the series was supposed to be the connection to the RW I'd thought. Betsy Hp From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 25 14:22:49 2008 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:22:49 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180960 Magpie: > > > It seems to me more like slave is the first thing we think of > > > because that's what it is, but since Harry's doing it and > > > slavery is kind of icky-sounding we've got reason to try to > > > find some other word to use. Alla: > > No, it is more like some of us (myself, since I cannot speak for > > aybody else) do not equate it with real world slavery no matter > > who is doing it Harry or anybody else. > Magpie: > You're right it's not real world slavery--it's fantasy slavery > where the slave is magically compelled to obey you, for one thing. > But I haven't seen anybody show that it's actually different than > slavery in the way it works. What they've said is that it "feels > different" if the slave wants to serve--and that's perfectly true > for human slaves as well. > > Sorry, I don't mean to claim to know someone's innermost thoughts > and motives as to why they want a different word. It's just that I > don't see how the arguments that it's truly different than slavery > (be it slavery by Romans, Americans or Martians) hold up when > describing house elves. SSSusan: What I object to is the, to me, rather offensive assumption that this is all a reaction to HARRY, the implication that people who have taken the view that I have [about wishing there were a different term] are such shallow readers that we are incapable of handling anything negative pertaining to Harry. So that when we encounter something icky that good ol', sweet ol', Hero Harry is doing, we can't "compute" and so go scrambling for some way to explain it away. That bothers me. I do adore Harry. But I am also pretty good at being able to take in and acknowledge "good people do bad things sometimes" and avoiding turning-a-blind-eye bias. (In real life, I'm also pretty good at separating myself from the bias one sometimes sees in athletic fans when they yell at refs every time calls are made against their team.) IOW, I don't believe I see things through Rose-Colored Harry Glasses even though I love the kid. In this whole discussion, I have been focusing on the ELVES and how I see them, how I read their natures, wishes, words and actions, and from THAT came the desire for a different term. It had nothing to do with wishing I could make up some softer word to get Harry's ass off the hook. Also, for me anyway, it was simply a *wish* that there had been a different word or term, not any kind of "demand" that other list members cease to use the term slavery if that's the word they believe fits. I mean, I get that you don't see the arguments that house elf slavery is fundamentally different than RW human slavery, but because you don't doesn't mean that others do not see it. Nor that it isn't a bit obnoxious for us to read the view that the whole rationale for discussing the perceived difference or seeking different terminology came from our inability to handle anything negative that Harry was doing! We don't have to agree about whether what house elves face is a perfect match for human slavery in the RW, but it would be nice to not assume bias or blindness on "the other side." Siriusly Snapey Susan, who truly would've been happy if the institution of House Elfhood had been eliminated somehow, as she does think the whole setup is pretty nasty, even if she doesn't see it precisely the same as human slavery From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 14:58:55 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:58:55 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic resolutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180961 > Betsy Hp: > IOWs, in scifi and fantasy, fantasy slavery *always* informs on RW > slavery. Just as the blood bigotry of the WW was meant to inform on > RW bigotry. (I'm not going to get into how well JKR did on either > point. *eg*) zgirnius: I do read a lot of these genres. What you say is true, but it does not have to inform on RW slavery in the particular way you insist it does/ought to/must. It could also be in there on the RL need to understand other cultures before messing with them, as Hermione in GoF did not. This is very much something that comes up in SF/Fantasy - people not taking these precautions, and the unexpected consequences of their actions. (See Winky, on the advisability of immediately freeing all House Elves against their wishes and 'for their own good'.) > Betsy Hp: > I have no idea on the coverage of slavery in Britain (I'm betting > it's not nearly as comprehensive as the US just by virtue of it being > so much further removed), but yes, there's an overlap into the RW > that makes it even harder to make the "different society, different > values" argument. Part of the charm of the series was supposed to be > the connection to the RW I'd thought. zgirnius: The charming connection to the RW is why Hermione reacts as she does when this fact of the Wizarding world is first brought to her attention. It is why it makes sense for her to be the character that drives this issue forward. It does not require, however, that her birth society's uninformed views of the subject, her initial view of the problem, must win. Or even, that this would be desirable. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 25 14:59:20 2008 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:59:20 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180962 Betsy: > This trying to come up with a less loaded word strikes me as ducking > the question. It's philisophically lazy, IMO. SSSusan: Wow. And I don't see it as philosophically lazy at all! I see *any* attempt to delve into an issue and struggle with its nature and definition as a respectable endeavor. I see it as a willingness to work at it; I don't at all see it as walking away or refusing to look. In fact, quite the opposite for me ? grappling with this makes me think hard and struggle, NOT avoid those things, so I don't find philosophically lazy in the slightest. Betsy: > Then why are those arguing in support of house-elf slavery using the > exact same arguments those in support of African-slavery used back > in the day? They're happier as slaves, they're not at all like us > and so have different needs, they're really more like animals than > anything. (I believe Fredrick Douglas was equated with a dog trained > to walk on its hind-legs.) SSSusan: For one reason, because we have seen house elves who have been offered freedom and DID NOT WANT IT. I seriously doubt the human slaves *themselves* said they were different from white folks, were happy as slaves or didn't want change. We *do* have elves who say they want to serve, don't want to be free and who demonstrate when given a legal out [e.g., Hermione's knitted hats, etc.] that they do not want it. I am decidedly NOT using the arguments used in 1700-1800s America *the way those arguments were used* then. Of course those were excuses, and the slaves weren't speaking for themselves. We have a mixture of wizard ("master class") comments and elf comments and actions to go on in HP. Mike: > My way of reading the house elves is that they are magical creatures > with this imperative to serve humans and human households. NOT that > they were compelled to do so by humans, manufactured by humans, or > otherwise forced to be slaves by humans. That house elves as slaves > is a natural condition for them in every sense of the word > "natural". I have no proof of my opinion, that's just the way I > read enchantment. That they are slaves for the same reason that > merpeople are aquatic beings, they just are. SSSusan: Thank you. This is part of if for me, too, Mike. Carol: > The thing is, we don't *know* that House-Elves' nature is > "culturally induced." (Isn't that a contradiction in terms, in any > case?) We don't know whether the enchantment that binds them to a > particular family is breakable through anything except giving them > clothes. And giving clothes to a House-Elf who regards clothing as > the mark of a disgraced Elf is simply not going to work. SSSusan: I agree. It's inconclusive from canon, though we also have people *saying* it's their "nature." True, it's wizards like Ron who say this, but it's not like the Weasleys had a house elf that they'd spent decades abusing and needed to have an excuse for saying it. Is there a reason why what we see and hear from the elves, coupled with comments from wizards, can't indicate the possibility that their alleged nature is their nature? Pippin: > The situation as of HBP is unfair to the elves, as I think everyone > agrees. Thus our moral discomfort with it. SSSusan: Absolutely. I'm not *comfortable* with it at all. I'd like to see it eliminated. I'd like there to be a way for house elves to be *convinced* of the wonderful benefits of being free, that they could still serve if they desired to, but that they could do so as free elves and hopefully for pay. Like Pippin said, no one so far knows how to accomplish it. This, to me, speaks to that difference between house elves and human slaves. Betsy: > Part of the charm of the series was supposed to be the connection > to the RW I'd thought. SSSusan: For some, I'm sure that's true... but there has never been agreement amongst HpfGUers over how much that connection "should" matter, nor the degree to which different fans focused on that. Heh, for me, I thought part of the charm of a fantasy series like HP was the escape it provided from the RW. Siriusly Snape Susan, who also appreciated Mike's example of the moving staircases vs. "stairs." :) From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 25 15:07:18 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:07:18 -0000 Subject: Filch (was Re: Squib!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180963 > Beatrice Responds:> > I always thought that Filch's position at Hogwarts was a bit like > Hagrid's in a way. snip Potioncat: But Hagrid has a meaningful role at Hogwarts. He really does perform as gamekeeper. He knows how to take care of interesting magical creatures. He may not be the best "teacher" of the subject, but he knows the subject. Whatever reason for Filch's being at Hogwarts, he is not given a meaningful job. In terms of the plot, yes the character plays a role, but I mean Filch's job at Hogwart's is meaningless. Let me quickly say, I don't think cleaning is meaningless---I think having Filch do the cleaning is down right cruel when the same job could be done quicker and easier by magic. By the way, do we see him cleaning in the later books? I recall he's in charge of inspecting students, and of enforcing rules. >Beatrice: ..., but they can't clean the entrance hall in the middle of the > day without being visable to all. Perhaps, Filch in a way is also > someone who can generally oversee the houseelves and act as a go > between if you will between the elves and the rest of the staff. Potioncat: While we never see the House-Elves working at Hogwarts, I'm not so sure it's a rule they can't be seen. Kreacher and Hokey(?) are visible as they serve their masters. And I'm sure a quick elfish version of Evanesco would only take a moment. Potioncat,...'can be done quicker and easier by magic'. Why is the "Ballad of John Henry" suddenly playing in my head? From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 16:10:02 2008 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:10:02 -0000 Subject: What if Harry had Tourette's. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180964 Tourette's. >From wikipedia: "Tourette syndrome (also called Tourette's syndrome, Tourette's disorder, Gilles de la Tourette syndrome, GTS or, more commonly, simply Tourette's or TS) is an inherited neurological disorder with onset in childhood, characterized by the presence of multiple physical (motor) tics and at least one vocal (phonic) tic; these tics characteristically wax and wane. Tourette's is defined as part of a spectrum of tic disorders, which includes transient and chronic tics. Tourette's was once considered a rare and bizarre syndrome, most often associated with the exclamation of obscene words or socially inappropriate and derogatory remarks (coprolalia)." Imagine Harry having this syndrome since the age of one (say from the moment he got that scar), and worsening towards age eleven. What would happen? 1. Dursleys. Would they keep Harry and punish him for that as well as his accidental magic or give him up to an orphanage? 2. How would wizards react? Imagine a big tic with extreme coprolalia in the first potions class for example. I'm positive that Dumbledore knows of this syndrome and would identify it, but Snape? Finwitch From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 17:08:46 2008 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:08:46 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic resolutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180965 > > Betsy Hp: > > IOWs, in scifi and fantasy, fantasy slavery *always* informs on RW > > slavery. Just as the blood bigotry of the WW was meant to inform > > on RW bigotry. > zgirnius: > I do read a lot of these genres. What you say is true, but it does > not have to inform on RW slavery in the particular way you insist it > does/ought to/must. It could also be in there on the RL need to > understand other cultures before messing with them, as Hermione in > GoF did not. This is very much something that comes up in SF/Fantasy - > people not taking these precautions, and the unexpected consequences > of their actions. (See Winky, on the advisability of immediately > freeing all House Elves against their wishes and 'for their own > good'.) Kemper now: I think you are correct with people taking precautions and that the immediate giving of clothes would be a poor and harmful means of Freedom. It would be like attacking a foreign country without a plan. There needs to be a system designed prior to the freedom that allows for the physical/emotional safety of the Elves which considers the elves and their perceived culture. Hermione doesn't consider the Elves' culture. Which is normal. She's following the golden rule (egocentric: do to others what you would have them do to you) instead of the platinum rule (considerate: do to others as they would want done to them). > > Betsy Hp: > > I have no idea on the coverage of slavery in Britain ... > > but yes, there's an overlap into the RW that makes > > it even harder to make the "different society, different > > values" argument. Part of the charm of the series was supposed to > > be the connection to the RW I'd thought. > zgirnius: > The charming connection to the RW is why Hermione reacts as she does > when this fact of the Wizarding world is first brought to her > attention. It is why it makes sense for her to be the character that > drives this issue forward. It does not require, however, that her > birth society's uninformed views of the subject, her initial view of > the problem, must win. Or even, that this would be desirable. Kemper now: But it lacks some charm if she's the only one reacting. It's kind of sad, really, that others (not just Harry, but all the Muggleborns or those raised in the RW) aren't compelled to voice dissent. Hermione seems the lone moral compass. I wish I liked her more. Kemper From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 17:09:14 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:09:14 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic resolutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180966 Betsy Hp: > EXACTLY! *bg* It has nothing to do with the type of work, the type of wages (if any, in the end), or the way in which a house-elf feels pride or job-satisfaction. A house-elf *cannot* say no to their master. It doesn't matter what they're asked to do, it doesn't matter what their personal feelings are on the matter, a house-elf CANNOT SAY NO. > > In that sense, house-elves are greater slaves than could ever be achieved in the RW. Carol responds: Then what's this enchantment that makes them iron their hands if they disobey their masters? Carol, who thinks ending *that* enchantment (if possible) would resolve the problem P.S. In RL, slavery means working without wages, which House-Elves don't want, so either they're not slaves as we know slavery or they're choosing to be slaves, which makes the term meaningless From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 18:08:12 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:08:12 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic resolutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180967 Kemper wrote: > It's kind of sad, really, that others (not just Harry, but all the Muggleborns or those raised in the RW) aren't compelled to voice dissent. Hermione seems the lone moral compass. I wish I liked her more. Carol responds: But *is* Hermione (in GoF-HBP) the "moral compass" at all? I thought that she was a typical example of an intelligent and idealistic teenage girl who thought that she had all the answers (SPEW), meets with resistance at every turn (not only from her fellow "good guy" Gryffindors but from the adult half-wizard, Hagrid) and later learns that she was wrong. She still wants to free the House-Elves, as she tells the wily Griphook, but she knows better than to do it against their will and she has come to understand and respect their point of view. (That she is right in DH, as opposed to the earlier books, is shown by Kreacher's grudging nod to the girl he has previously labeled as "the Mudblood" and by the alteration in Kreacher's behavior and attitude toward "Master Harry" once Harry understands and respects Kreacher's adoration of "Master Regulus," in essence allying himself with this scion of the Black family--Kreacher's family--rather than assuming the worst of a boy who was both a Slytherin and a Death Eater.) Hermione, it seems to me, has learned that House-Elves are magical creatures that think differently from humans (whether Wizard or Muggle) and have different values from teenage girls who lived until age eleven in postmodern Muggle Britain (with presumably liberal parents). The pureblood Wizards' view of House-Elves, as represented by Ron (and that of nonpurebloods who grew up in the WW, like Hagrid) matches the House Elves' view of themselves much more closely than Hermione's does. That Ron is right and Hermione is wrong is clearly shown by Winky's hysterics when Hermione tries to comfort her and talk about her rights and by the Hogwarts Elves' reactions to Ron's compliment "Good service!" (they beam with joy and pride) in contrast to their reaction to Hermione (shooing HRH out of the kitchen, which as "slaves" you'd think they'd be unable to do). SPEW is obviously the wrong solution to the perceived problem of House-Elf "slavery," as even Hermione ultimately understands. She takes the next step, attempting to understand their psychology and focusing on the enchantment that forces them to punish themselves for disobedience. *That*, we are given to understand, is where the problem lies. I agree with you about the "platinum rule" (a concept I've never heard of before). The right way to treat House-Elves is the way *they* want to be treated rather than imposing postmodern Muggle values on magical creatures who still follow ancient traditions, either because they want to or because of some ancient and evidently unalterable enchantment. "They--like--it," says Ron of the Hogwarts House-Elves (he's not speaking of the misfits, Dobby, Kreacher, and Winky). And, once Kreacher comes to respect Harry (because Harry understands and respects *him*), Kreacher becomes a happy House-Elf. To say that House-Elf servitude is "slavery" and to try to impose human values on them is to fundamentally misunderstand the problem. Might as well fit them all with Hogwarts uniforms now, force them to use wands and attend classes, and go out into the WW to become bureaucrats, teachers, and Troll trainers. House-Elves are magical creatures, as different from Wizards as Centaurs and Merpeople are. While we're at it, why not force the Giants, Trolls, Centaurs, Merpeople, Goblins, and whoever I'm forgetting to conform to the human ideal as well. Back in ancient times when I attended Northern Arizona University as an undergraduate, there was a sign in front of the Administration Building which read, "To become educated is to become more human." But to send House-Elves out into the world to make their own way as humans are forced to do is only possible if they're made "human" through a wholly unsuitable (and unnecessary) education. House-Elves learn wandless, nonverbal magic without a Hogwarts education, thank you. I say, let House-Elves be House-Elves. Don't force "freedom" on them. Just treat them with respect and consideration and don't give them orders that they can't obey or might disobey and end up punishing themselves. How about a compulsory course at Hogwarts, House-Elf Studies, as a companion course to Muggle Studies? Taught by someone who understands and respects House-Elves, of course. Carol, who agrees with SSS that those of us who don't consider House-Elf servitude to be analogous to human slavery are by no means defending Harry as a hero who can do no wrong (I disapprove of that Crucio, remember? And I think that Harry only becomes enlightened with regard to Snape, Kreacher, and a number of other characters in the last book) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Jan 25 18:10:05 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:10:05 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180968 > SSSusan: > What I object to is the, to me, rather offensive assumption that this > is all a reaction to HARRY, the implication that people who have > taken the view that I have [about wishing there were a different > term] are such shallow readers that we are incapable of handling > anything negative pertaining to Harry. So that when we encounter > something icky that good ol', sweet ol', Hero Harry is doing, we > can't "compute" and so go scrambling for some way to explain it > away. That bothers me. Magpie: I didn't mean for it to sound so shallow as not being able to believe Harry could do anything bad. It was just easy to refer to Harry because he's a shorthand for generally positive things, or behavior that the book says is okay (or at least forgivable). It does seem like the basic idea behind it not being slavery is that it's not bad in the same way, and I think that's because that's the opinion the book puts across--not by having Harry do it but by having the same views as Harry on it. The way it comes across in the books to me seems to be that JKR wanted to have these house elves because they're neat. They're like brownies, which would be fine--except then she changed them and used one in a storyline that required Harry to save him from his slavery. In fact, most of the house elf storylines in the books come specifically from their being oppressed and enslaved as individuals. But in the end house elves are a cool part of the WW, as fun as Portkeys or something like that. I do, I admit, doubt that if Lucius Malfoy were the only house elf owner in canon (along with perhaps Mr. Crouch) we'd generally consider house elf slavery to just be slavery. Not just because Harry wasn't doing it but because it wouldn't be presented as a nice thing in any way. We wouldn't have the face of a "reluctant" slave owner to deal with. The distinction between somebody like Lucius and somebody like Harry does seem to be made both in the books and in this thread, as if Harry being a guy who treats his house elves better than we imagine Lucius treating his changes the nature of their contract. I don't think it's about just trying to absolve Harry, I think it's an argument in favor of what Harry happens to wind up doing, which is totally excused in canon. In this case Harry is a stand-in for the reader who has the same attitude that's being argued here. SSSusan: In this whole discussion, I have > been focusing on the ELVES and how I see them, how I read their > natures, wishes, words and actions, and from THAT came the desire for > a different term. It had nothing to do with wishing I could make up > some softer word to get Harry's ass off the hook. Magpie: And I'm trying to get away from the elves, not only because it takes away the fact that Wizards are pursuing their own interests in this arrangement (as if they're just giving into what's best for elves, when Wizards do what's best for Wizards), but because the elves themselves don't conform to the position you're giving them, if I understand it correctly. You seem to be arguing that since elves don't want freedom and want to be owned, it's not slavery, yet canon has given us plenty of examples of elves unhappy because they don't have the freedom to follow their own desires. The whole idea that "it's natural" glides over the numerous examples of elves acting against their own desires and wills thanks to their position. To use the "just because it looks like slavery doesn't mean it is" argument in yet another way, just because house elves look like they want to be slaves doesn't mean they actually do. They like serving others, but suffer under the institution of slavery as it exists in the WW. We lose the ability to make this point the minute they stop being free. > Magpie: > You're right it's not real world slavery--it's fantasy slavery > where the slave is magically compelled to obey you, for one thing. > But I haven't seen anybody show that it's actually different than > slavery in the way it works. Mike: But that is the difference, Magpie. It's fantasy slavery, house elf slavery, not real world human slavery. That's why I'm not willing to attach real world values to it, nor condemn the wizard slave owners like I would real world slave owners. It doesn't work *exactly* the same, humans weren't enchanted to be slaves, slave humans were sold, bought, traded, not bound magically to a family/homestead, human slaves didn't have magic that they couldn't use without their master's permission, and the vast, overwhelming majority of human slaves would not have eschewed freedom because it was an insult to their being. Magpie: But those values are right there in canon imo. I'm not condemning them as humans--really we mean, Muggles--I'm condemning them as Wizards (who are human) for the reasons I see in the books. JKR's fantasy world relies even more heavily on recognizing RW stuff than most (we know Mudblood is a really bad word because we recognize the reactions and tone as like a racial slur). It doesn't matter imo whether the overwhelming majority of human slaves wouldn't have eschewed freedom--the very fact that we're talking about freedom being the opposite of the condition implies we're talking about slavery. What's important is that any who *do* want freedom (and any time you wish you could do something other than what your master wants you to do is wanting freedom) don't have it, and if anyone developed that desire they wouldn't have it. That situation has been dramatized plenty with house elves in canon. Dobby can't do what he wants when he's owned by Lucius, Kreacher can't do what he wants when he's owned by Harry. Maybe one of those two still considers it a disgrace to be sacked and out of work, but he's still suffering from a lack of freedom and trying to find ways to be free to act according to his own wishes. If house elves were only being driven by a desire to work for wizards in a household without the yoke of slavery there would be no problem. Kreacher could switch from serving the Order or Harry to serving the Malfoys or Bellatrix--while still refusing to do anything those new owners wanted him to do if it were a problem. Dobby could switch from serving Lucius to doing things for Harry. An ironic thing about not judging it like human slavery, of course, is that human slavery wasn't and isn't judged the way we judge it today, and all humans who were slaves weren't always judged as fully human. Mike: As I've said, that term works for me. But I understand the search for a new word. Take the moving stair cases in Hogwarts. One walks up and down them like stairs, one moves to a different floor with them, and other than the cool headmaster's circular escalator, one must provide one's own propulsion. All just like regular stairs. Except they are enchanted to move, so one doesn't end up at the same place every time after one takes the same stair case. I don't have another name for them besides "stairs", but they don't have all of the same qualities as real world stairs. So simply calling them stairs seems lacking to explain all that they are, they don't *exactly* equate to real world stairs. Magpie: Right--but we still call them stairs because they're stairs with some magical specialties. Just like we call their broomsticks broomsticks, photos photos, portraits portraits. We just distinguish whether we're talking about the Wizard version or the Muggle version. It would just be needlessly confusing to refuse to use the word "stairs" because they're different than Muggle stairs. > Magpie: > The differences lie in how the enslavement is enforced and how > it's viewed imo. The institution fits all the requirements for > regular slavery only with a magical component, and that's > considered mutually beneficial rather than a bad thing. It's > culturally approved slavery. Mike: Yes, I think you've got the essence of it. That magical component is critical and is also what makes it culturally acceptable in the WW. Magpie: I think there's other things that make it culturally acceptable to Wizards and acceptable to readers, actually. We don't know whether the magical compulsion was created by Wizards any more than we know if Elves were the ones who came up with their being the property of Wizards. We also don't know that elves couldn't survive outside of these norms. Winky survives, Dobby survives. Winky is depressed at being sacked, but she doesn't shrivel up and die like she would in a symbiotic relationship. We've seen examples of elves being killed by Wizards, but not Elves dying for lack of Wizards. Elves are under an enchantment to punish themselves if they disobey their owner, but not to kill or harm themselves in a similar way if they no longer have an owner. The society isn't currently set up to support them as free people looking for work, but their body doesn't give up without Wizards. Carol: What would happen to the Elves of Hogwarts if they were suddenly "freed"? Would they just keep their jobs as if nothing had happened and refuse wages, time off, and clothes (the mark of a disgraced House-Elf), in which case "freedom" is meaningless? Magpie: But freedom isn't "meaningless" at all without those things! Freedom doesn't mean wages, time off and clothes, it means owning yourself rather than being owned by someone else. Carol: Slavery is the condition of one human being owning another human being. RL slavery exists and can exist in no other form. Magpie: That's completely untrue in a fictional world where "persons" aren't always human. Humans owning humans is the only kind of slavery in the RW because humans are the only species on the planet who can reach the sentience of people. In fictional universes this isn't true--and it's not in the WW. House Elves are persons, they just aren't human persons. Just as Lupin, Hagrid, the giants, Firenze and Griphook are people. Carol: We are talking about imaginary beings here, not people. And so far as I can see, they have no other purpose and no other desire than to serve Wizards. (Please show me canon evidence to the contrary if you can find it. Even the "Free Elf" Dobby continues to serve Wizards, Dumbledore for the low wages he talked DD into giving him--DD originally offered too much money--and Harry by choice.) Magpie: We are talking about imaginary people. And I think this conflates "wanting to serve Wizards" with "wanting to serve Wizards against my will." We have plenty of canonical evidence of House Elves who have other purposes and other desires than what their Wizard master commands that they do. Dobby the house elf sees the difference between working for Dumbledore for low wages by choice and being owned and commanded against his will by Lucius. Was Dobby's entire life a hallucination? Carol: This is not slavery. It's either voluntary (willing) or involuntary (unwilling) servitude. And a House-Elf *can* disobey his master, so long as he punishes himself for the disobedience. *That's* where the problem comes in, as Hermione points out in "Kreacher's Tale." Magpie: The "problem" coming in here being slavery, the fact that they are in a position where they're supposed to do things according to someone else's will rather than their own. Naturally it's in the moments where their will conflicts with their master's it becomes most apparent. Kreacher only left the house when he could twist Sirius' words into permission to leave. The elves we've seen being recalcitrant aren't able to just act as they like and iron their hands later no biggie, they operate around their orders. Kreacher *wanted* to side with Malfoy in HBP. He couldn't because Harry made sure to give him orders that prevented him doing it. They have some leeway where they know they're really working against the master and punish themselves for it, but it's not like Dobby didn't see the difference between his position at the beginning of CoS and the end. Not that this enchantment to punish has been lifted, btw. Hermione says it's sick, but it's not gone anywhere by the end of the book. I think that if it was lifted, frankly, masters would just start punishing their house elves themselves, because as the master it's their right to have their slave obey them. You haven't just argued here that house elves aren't slaves, you've argued that humans have never been slaves either. After all, human slaves have even greater ability than house elves to disobey their masters. They could run away, they could disobey, they could be openly defiant. So according to this view of slavery no human has ever been a slave, because as long as you aren't a mindless zombie (of the Val Lewton variety, not the George A. Romero kind!) you can't be a slave. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 18:31:42 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:31:42 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 6-11 post DH look Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180969 I do not have much to talk about in these chapters as something that I would view in drastically new light after the end of the series, but there are a few moments. As always please feel free to add your own. "Not to worry," she said. " All you have to do is walk straight at the barrier between platforms nine and ten. Don't stop and don't be scared you'll crash into it, that's very important. Best do it at a bit of a run if you are nervous. Go on, go now before Ron" - p.93 Alla: When I reread that lovely directions from Molly to Harry, I was wondering whether this indicates that intent is very important in performing the magic after all. I mean, "do not stop and do not be scared" is an indication of intent to arrive at platform, no? "Ah,yes," - he said softly, "Harry Potter. Our new - celebrity" - p.136. Alla: Hee, the infamous first potion lesson. No, it did not appear to me in a new light all together, still hate what Snape did here, BUT I have a question. Why doesn't he just say "our celebrity"? Who was celebrity before Harry, the old celebrity? Is it a reference to James? Is it a reference to Tom Riddle or somebody else? "Anyway, we've got to go, Lee Jordan reckons he's found a new secret passageway out of the school." "Bet it's that one behind the statue of Gregory the Smarmy that we found in our first week. See you." - p.153 Alla: Do you think that this exchange indicates that Twins do not have Marauders map at this point in time yet? "I almost told your brother," Hermione snapped, "Percy - he's prefect, he'd put a stop to this." Harry could not believe anyone could be so interfering" - p.155 Alla: Mmmm, do you think Harry since changed his POV and decided that there are a great deal more interfering people in his life than Hermione? "But Hermione had given Harry something else to think about as he climbed back into bed. The dog was guarding something... What had Hagrid said? Gringotts was the safest place in the world for something you wanted to hide - except perhaps Hogwarts. It looked as though Harry had found out where the grubby little package from vault seven hundred and thirteen was." - p.162 Alla: I don't know about anybody else, but I am really impressed with Harry's ability to think and put two and two together here. Heee, Hermione would be so proud. But anyways, to me it foreshadowed that sometimes when he puts himself to it, he could figure out staff, not just act without thinking. :) "Hardly anyone had seen Harry play because Wood had decided that, as their secret weapon, Harry should be kept, well, secret." - p.180. Alla: I know it is reference to Qudditch, but I cannot help but remember that Harry as a secret weapon motive goes through OOP and cannot help but read this line with it in mind as well. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 18:33:14 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:33:14 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic resolutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180970 > >>Betsy Hp: > > IOWs, in scifi and fantasy, fantasy slavery *always* informs on > > RW slavery. Just as the blood bigotry of the WW was meant to > > inform on RW bigotry. (I'm not going to get into how well JKR > > did on either point. *eg*) > >>zgirnius: > I do read a lot of these genres. What you say is true, but it does > not have to inform on RW slavery in the particular way you insist > it does/ought to/must. Betsy Hp: Ooh! Loaded words! *bg* It's not really me "insisting" that house- elf slavery "must" inform on RW slavery. It's JKR in introducing us to the concept through a slave aching to be free, and then introducing us to two other slaves in moments when their owners are subjecting them to a great deal of anguish. IOWs, it's really hard for me to work with the idea that all house-elves are happy with their lot when the three we get to know are so obviously miserable. > >>zgirnius: > It could also be in there on the RL need to understand other > cultures before messing with them, as Hermione in GoF did not. > Betsy Hp: Oh sure. And, honestly it is. But then, there's nothing to say JKR couldn't (and was probably attempting) to do both. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180962 > >>Betsy: > > This trying to come up with a less loaded word strikes me as > > ducking the question. It's philisophically lazy, IMO. > >>SSSusan: > Wow. And I don't see it as philosophically lazy at all! I see *any* > attempt to delve into an issue and struggle with its nature and > definition as a respectable endeavor. I see it as a willingness to > work at it; I don't at all see it as walking away or refusing to > look. In fact, quite the opposite for me ? grappling with this makes > me think hard and struggle, NOT avoid those things, so I don't find > philosophically lazy in the slightest. Betsy Hp: I see the reluctance to call a slave a slave as avoiding the delving. We are talking about creatures who are in a position where their owners can do *anything* to them. ANYTHING. Kreacher was forced to kill himself for his owner. He was forced to betray a family he loved for his owner. Dobby was forced to torture himself for his owner. And Winky was brutally reminded that she was property, not family, by a man she obviously loved, her owner. It's a horror, imo. And to try and back away from it by calling it something *other* than slavery seems an attempt to candy-coat it. > >>SSSusan: > For one reason, because we have seen house elves who have been > offered freedom and DID NOT WANT IT. I seriously doubt the human > slaves *themselves* said they were different from white folks, were > happy as slaves or didn't want change. Betsy Hp: Actually, I think you're wrong. Slaves were offered freedom during the Revolutionary War and didn't take it. And slaves refused to leave their "families" and refused to join uprisings. (I think that's why the term "house slave" is used in a derogatory manner within the black community.) Also, there was a study that discovered little black children labeled black dolls as ugly and white dolls as beautiful, showing that they did see a difference, saw white people as better. (I believe that study was part of what brought about the end of "seperate but equal".) Of course, House-elves *are* different. The parallels aren't exact. Because while JKR wanted us to hate the Malfoys for owning a slave, she wanted us to still love slave-owning Harry. (Why she wanted Harry to have a slave, I have no idea.) For whatever reason, JKR took a u-turn. But, IMO, it wasn't enough of one to undo everything else she'd written. > >>SSSusan: > I am decidedly NOT using the arguments used in 1700-1800s America > *the way those arguments were used* then. Of course those were > excuses, and the slaves weren't speaking for themselves. We have a > mixture of wizard ("master class") comments and elf comments and > actions to go on in HP. > Betsy Hp: There were those who quite earnestly believed blacks were that different from whites. And they made their arguments in good faith. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180966 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > A house-elf *cannot* say no to their master. It doesn't matter > > what they're asked to do, it doesn't matter what their personal > > feelings are on the matter, a house-elf CANNOT SAY NO. > > > >>Carol: > Then what's this enchantment that makes them iron their hands if > they disobey their masters? Betsy Hp: That would be the enchantment that makes a house-elf unable to say no. What makes a house-elf a slave. *bg* > >>Carol, who thinks ending *that* enchantment (if possible) would > resolve the problem Betsy Hp: I agree. Because at that point, the house-elf would no longer be owned. They'd have choice. > >>Carol: > P.S. In RL, slavery means working without wages, which House-Elves > don't want, so either they're not slaves as we know slavery or > they're choosing to be slaves, which makes the term meaningless Betsy Hp: Ah, but that's ascribing your personal cultural bias as to what constitutes "wages". *bg* If a house-elf could leave a family they no longer wished to work for, if wizards and witches had to take care of keeping their house-elves content or no more house-elf, I think that would remove house-elves from being slaves. Even if "wages" came down to... I don't know, shiny copper pots in the kitchen to polish and crisp linens to iron. Betsy Hp From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 18:53:38 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:53:38 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 6-11 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180971 > Alla: > Hee, the infamous first potion lesson. No, it did not appear to me > in a new light all together, still hate what Snape did here, BUT I > have a question. Why doesn't he just say "our celebrity"? Who was > celebrity before Harry, the old celebrity? zgirnius: Harry is new to the school. I do not believe there was any deeper meaning in the word, such as a contrast to an old celebrity. James was hardly in Harry's league, after all, just a popular boy and school sports star. Harry is "The Boy Who Lived", and enjoys fame far and wide, outside the school. > Alla: > Mmmm, do you think Harry since changed his POV and decided that > there are a great deal more interfering people in his life than > Hermione? zgirnius: Yes, in a word. When a friend does it, it is no longer 'interfering'. > PS/SS: > "Hardly anyone had seen Harry play because Wood had decided that, as > their secret weapon, Harry should be kept, well, secret." - p.180. > Alla: > I know it is reference to Qudditch, but I cannot help but remember > that Harry as a secret weapon motive goes through OOP and cannot > help but read this line with it in mind as well. zgirnius: I'd say it goes further than that. He's still DD's 'secret weapon' in DH. From tubazrcool at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 16:40:38 2008 From: tubazrcool at yahoo.com (Heather Rivera) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:40:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What if Harry had Tourette's. Message-ID: <66016.63030.qm@web38512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180972 Finwitch: >From wikipedia: Tourette's is defined as part of a spectrum of tic disorders, which includes transient and chronic tics. Imagine Harry having this syndrome since the age of one (say from the moment he got that scar), and worsening towards age eleven. What would happen? 1. Dursleys. Would they keep Harry and punish him for that as well as his accidental magic or give him up to an orphanage? 2. How would wizards react? Imagine a big tic with extreme coprolalia in the first potions class for example. I'm positive that Dumbledore knows of this syndrome and would identify it, but Snape? tubazrcool: 1. I think the magic spurts would have driven the Dursley's crazy and the neighbours might have figured it out then. I am pretty sure Dumbledore would have sent the "Remember my last, Petunia!" message a little earlier than the fifth book. And, if the Dursley's were adamant enough on giving Harry to an orphange, Dumbledore would have found him a more suitable home. --> On the orphanage note, do you think the reason Dumbledore refused to give Harry to an orphanage was so Harry wouldn't end up figuring out his magical abilities earlier and abuse them, like Voldemort had? 2. I imagine Snape would have taken off extreme points from Gryffindor the first time it happened, but would have gone to Dumbledore as the vulgar language continued. But as a kid, Harry would have most likely been taught to use euphemistic language instead of the actual curse words. For example, one of my friends uses "Son of a biscuit-eating mother frito!" Dumbledore would most likely have diagnosed it at the first few public scenes, and would have taken steps to prevent it. They probably had a charm they could cast which prevented foul language from being heard, like a special Silencio spell. Question: 3. What do you think would have happened at all the Malfoy encounters? tubazrcool From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 19:33:39 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:33:39 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180973 Magpie wrote: > You seem to be arguing that since elves > don't want freedom and want to be owned, it's not slavery, yet canon > has given us plenty of examples of elves unhappy because they don't > have the freedom to follow their own desires. The whole idea > that "it's natural" glides over the numerous examples of elves > acting against their own desires and wills thanks to their position. > Carol responds: The only kind of "will" that House-Elves seem to have is to serve a master that they think is deserving, which is why Dobby and Kreacher rebel in their respective ways. Dobby wants to be a "Free Elf"--free to serve Harry Potter (and/or work for dumbledore to earn just enough money to buy socks. He doesn't want too much time off because he "likes work better"). Kreacher, too, likes to work and does it voluntarily once he and his new master come to a mutual understanding. Winky hates her "freedom," and uses it to become a miserable drunkard because she wants to return to her beloved master. Where do we see a single House-Elf who wants what human beings call freedom? Do they want to vote? Not that I know of. Do they want to open a business and become entrepreneurs or write textbooks or train security Trolls or start an eel farm or open a chocolate factory? Not that I know of. *They want to work for Wizards in Wizard houses* (in most cases, one that they or their ancestors have been magically associated with for generations or centuries or perhaps millennia). What they don't want is to be abused. All a House-Elf wants (and that includes the so-called Free Elf, Dobby) is a Wizard master or mistress that he can respect and who treats him well. *Why not listen to the House-Elves* and believe what they say (or what their actions show)? If, like human slaves, they wanted to be like their masters (making money, owning property, *not* working if they can help it), it would be different. But their nature and their values are clearly not ours. Carol, who would be very happy indeed to own a House-Elf, who, in turn, would be happy to work for me because I would treat her as she wants to be treated From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 25 19:36:58 2008 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:36:58 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180974 SSSusan earlier: > > What I object to is the, to me, rather offensive assumption that > > this is all a reaction to HARRY, the implication that people who > > have taken the view that I have [about wishing there were a > > different term] are such shallow readers that we are incapable of > > handling anything negative pertaining to Harry. So that when we > > encounter something icky that good ol', sweet ol', Hero Harry is > > doing, we can't "compute" and so go scrambling for some way to > > explain it away. That bothers me. Magpie: > I didn't mean for it to sound so shallow as not being able to > believe Harry could do anything bad. It was just easy to refer to > Harry because he's a shorthand for generally positive things, or > behavior that the book says is okay (or at least forgivable). SSSusan: Thanks. I guess I really don't like that kind of shorthand, though, because it assumes too much, I think. It's like, pre-DH, when people would say that the shorthand DDM!Snaper meant the person believed Snape was an all-around good guy or included the belief that he didn't he ever abused anyone. It wasn't fair to use such a shorthand because it didn't include a LOT of people's nuances away from that position. (I always thought Snape was a complete & total prick who happened to be on the side of good, for instance.) The shorthand assumption was an *extension* of the basic position of "Dumbledore's Man," based upon what folks in another camp thought was included with that one label. You may be talking about shorthand for things-in-the-book, though, whereas I certainly took it for a shorthand about what certain list members must be thinking/reacting to because of the position they've taken + their feelings about Harry. And that I objected to. Magpie: > It does seem like the basic idea behind it not being slavery is > that it's not bad in the same way, and I think that's because > that's the opinion the book puts across--not by having Harry do it > but by having the same views as Harry on it. SSSusan: Except that I really have no IDEA whether Harry's views on this are the same as mine. I have no idea whether he wished there was a different term for what he saw with House Elves than what he likely (?) knew about slavery in the Muggle world. I have no idea whether he would have been truly excited to end House Elf Slavery/Servanthood/Whatever, if a fabulous mechanism for doing so could've been found. He certainly didn't seem as gung ho to *work* on a solution as I like to think I would have been if I'd been in his shoes (or Ron's or Luna's or...). I guess Harry's views, to me, don't play much into my particular position or attempt to understand this issue. So I don't think, for me anyway, that the idea that it's not the SAME kind of slavery comes from a judgment that it's not as bad so much as it comes from my sense that it is simply different. Yes, it IS easier to stomach a lot of it BECAUSE of the elf & wizard claims & evidence that elves are "designed" to serve and want to serve and don't want freedom. So they go hand in hand in a way ? the difference in it may make it feel "less bad" to some folks ? but I don't know that it's that actual "less bad" aspect which makes it appear as something different than human slavery so much as just the FACTS of those differences themselves. (Boy, did I ever say that poorly. My apologies for not being able to express that more clearly.) Magpie: > The way it comes across in the books to me seems to be that JKR > wanted to have these house elves because they're neat. They're like > brownies, which would be fine--except then she changed them and > used one in a storyline that required Harry to save him from his > slavery. In fact, most of the house elf storylines in the books > come specifically from their being oppressed and enslaved as > individuals. But in the end house elves are a cool part of the WW, > as fun as Portkeys or something like that. SSSusan: Maybe, re: the "in the end" part. I can certainly understand why it feels that way to you. I'm not so sure that it's considered *cool*... but it definitely wasn't taken care of by the end, and it leaves things up in the air. For us to wonder about and discuss ad infinitem. :) Magpie: > I do, I admit, doubt that if Lucius Malfoy were the only house elf > owner in canon (along with perhaps Mr. Crouch) we'd generally > consider house elf slavery to just be slavery. Not just because > Harry wasn't doing it but because it wouldn't be presented as a > nice thing in any way. We wouldn't have the face of a "reluctant" > slave owner to deal with. The distinction between somebody like > Lucius and somebody like Harry does seem to be made both in the > books and in this thread, as if Harry being a guy who treats his > house elves better than we imagine Lucius treating his changes the > nature of their contract. I don't think it's about just trying to > absolve Harry, I think it's an argument in favor of what Harry > happens to wind up doing, which is totally excused in canon. In > this case Harry is a stand-in for the reader who has the same > attitude that's being argued here. SSSusan: I wish I understood your last remark better, but I'm afraid I don't. : ( I don't think I'm one of the ones who's been making a distinction between Lucius' & Harry's treatment of their elves in the thread, and so maybe that's why I'm not getting it. All I know is that I've argued that there is something different between the elves and RL human slaves and between the versions of slavery or servitude at play in RL and in the HP series. I can't NOT see those differences that I've mentioned several times (e.g., house elves have been presented with free & legal "outs" and have not only refused but gone running from the offer). So I don't know what attitude I or some folks are "excusing." :-| (I'm not trying to be difficult, really! I think we're just coming at this not only from different positions but also from two slightly different angles, and it's causing me trouble in grasping your comment.) SSSusan earlier: > > In this whole discussion, I have been focusing on the ELVES and > > how I see them, how I read their natures, wishes, words and > > actions, and from THAT came the desire for a different term. It > > had nothing to do with wishing I could make up some softer word > > to get Harry's ass off the hook. Magpie: > And I'm trying to get away from the elves, not only because it > takes away the fact that Wizards are pursuing their own interests > in this arrangement (as if they're just giving into what's best for > elves, when Wizards do what's best for Wizards), but because the > elves themselves don't conform to the position you're giving them, > if I understand it correctly. You seem to be arguing that since > elves don't want freedom and want to be owned, it's not slavery, > yet canon has given us plenty of examples of elves unhappy because > they don't have the freedom to follow their own desires. The whole > idea that "it's natural" glides over the numerous examples of elves > acting against their own desires and wills thanks to their position. SSSusan: And yet the whole disregarding of elves not WANTING freedom strikes me as gliding over something significant, too. You want to get away from the elves; and I do not want to do so, for that is where I see the fundamental difference that makes me see this as something different from human, RW slavery. I am not even saying it's not slavery; I'm just saying it's *different* enough to me that it intrigues me and makes me wish for a different reference point. I can't see it being HANDLED in quite the same way -- or eliminated in quite the same way -- as human slavery was in the RW because of those differences. That's the majority of what I've been trying to drive at. I can't make you switch your focus ONTO the elves, because you don't want it or see a reason for it to be there. But similarly, I'm not going to see the two versions of slavery as identical, because my focus IS there. Magpie: > To use the "just because it looks like slavery doesn't mean it is" > argument in yet another way, just because house elves look like > they want to be slaves doesn't mean they actually do. SSSusan: Then WHY have they run away from the opportunity to not be slaves? I don't understand why that point gets pooh-poohed. Several Hogwarts HEs are offered freedom via Hermione's hats. They run away from them. Why do we need to assume they don't *actually* want to be slaves, if they're showing us that they don't want to take the freedom offered to them? Magpie: > They like serving others, but suffer under the institution of > slavery as it exists in the WW. We lose the ability to make this > point the minute they stop being free. SSSusan: And I agree with you that they suffer. Which is why I would like to see the institution eliminated. I just would want to be careful how it's done, because of the elves' different views of who they are and what they do and what gives them worth, compared to what most human slaves likely felt about those things. Magpie: > It doesn't matter imo whether the overwhelming majority of human > slaves wouldn't have eschewed freedom--the very fact that we're > talking about freedom being the opposite of the condition implies > we're talking about slavery. What's important is that any who *do* > want freedom (and any time you wish you could do something other > than what your master wants you to do is wanting freedom) don't > have it, and if anyone developed that desire they wouldn't have it. > That situation has been dramatized plenty with house elves in > canon. Dobby can't do what he wants when he's owned by Lucius, > Kreacher can't do what he wants when he's owned by Harry. Maybe one > of those two still considers it a disgrace to be sacked and out of > work, but he's still suffering from a lack of freedom and trying to > find ways to be free to act according to his own wishes. SSSusan: And to me it *does* matter, so that's why we're not getting to any point of agreement. :) I GET that you're saying, "We're talking about slavery because the HEs don't have total freedom." I GET that. But I'm simply continuing to remark that I see the "variety" of slavery, if you will, as something different. It's like there has to be a Slavery/Not Slavery dichotomy and that's ALL that matters. That's fine for folks who see it that way. All I'm adding is that for some of us, it's not that black & white a dichotomy in the sense that we do observe some differences within the category which would be classed "Slavery" and would like to note that and consider what those differences might mean and how it might impact how things play out. Mike: > As I've said, that term works for me. But I understand the search > for a new word. Take the moving stair cases in Hogwarts. > I don't have another name for them besides "stairs", but they don't > have all of the same qualities as real world stairs. So simply > calling them stairs seems lacking to explain all that they are, > they don't *exactly* equate to real world stairs. Magpie: > Right--but we still call them stairs because they're stairs with > some magical specialties. Just like we call their broomsticks > broomsticks, photos photos, portraits portraits. We just > distinguish whether we're talking about the Wizard version or the > Muggle version. SSSusan: That's actually what I'm saying. And I personally don't give a rat's patootie what term is come up with (i.e., whether it contains the word "slavery" or not), as the key to me is recognition that it's not identical to the RW version, that it's "stairs with some magical specialties." No one on this list should insist anyone else use a term they created for their own sake, you know? So if a listee calls what the house elves do something besides "slavery," s/he has a right to do that, and someone else could object or say, "Why do you do that?" Similarly, if most people keep right on calling it "slavery" or "House Elf slavery," so be it. Others are free, always, to argue that point, too. It's not like (heh, I don't think!) anyone is actually saying, "NO LONGER SHALL THE WORD 'SLAVERY' BE USED ON THIS LIST TO DESCRIBE HOUSE ELVES." Hee. Magpie: > I think there's other things that make it culturally acceptable to > Wizards and acceptable to readers, actually. We don't know whether > the magical compulsion was created by Wizards any more than we know > if Elves were the ones who came up with their being the property of > Wizards. SSSusan: No, we don't know any of this... for either side of the possibility spectrum (Wizards somehow caused or brought it on vs. total Nature- driven compulsion). We really can't assume *either,* imo. Siriusly Snapey Susan From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Fri Jan 25 19:57:04 2008 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:57:04 -0000 Subject: What if Harry had Tourette's. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180975 > finwitch: > > Tourette's. >From wikipedia: "Tourette syndrome (also called Tourette's syndrome, Tourette's disorder, Gilles de la Tourette syndrome, GTS or, more commonly, simply Tourette's or TS) is an inherited neurological disorder with onset in childhood, characterized by the presence of multiple physical (motor) tics and at least one vocal (phonic) tic; these tics characteristically wax and wane. Tourette's is defined as part of a spectrum of tic disorders, which includes transient and chronic tics. Tiffany: I think all the randomness of magical spells, saying, & potions to come out for no reason would drive even the most patient person mad if they're around them frequently enough to notice that Harry's not acting normally. I'm sure that at Hogwarts someone would figure it out eventually & would discover some sorts magical spell or potion that could counteract the effects of it. I also believe that the verbal stuff to come out would be as creepy as the actual body movements or random use of magic by Harry. I think that Harry could easily live a happy adult life as a Wizrd if he's careful & remembers his medicines if he has to take them. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 20:14:50 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:14:50 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180976 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/messages/180898 > a_svirn: > And what if it is? Goblins with their contempt for private > property are nothing like real life bankers either. Still we > recognise them as bankers. Mike: I'm curious, do you find goblins' notion of ownership inappropriate for bankers? Or do you think it is their culture and, therefore, wizards should respect that culture, accede to their position? > a_svirn: > Elves aren't human, but they are still slaves. The fact that > they seem to have a powerful urge to serve is no excuse for > putting them under legal and magical constraints. Or, rather, it > is exactly what it is ? an excuse, a justification for slavery. > > We *know* that they are constrained by humans. It is a fact of > canon. Kreacher was constrained by law and by magic to be a slave > And withholding this freedom is what slavery is about. Mike: Now we may be getting down to the nut of it. I've said that I think the elves being slaves is their natural state of being. That's the way I read the books. Now you seem to be saying that it's *canon* that they are enslaved by wizard *law*. Are you saying there is canon that says that house elves are slaves by virtue of legal constraints? Could you give me the canon that you're referencing? If instead, it's just your way of reading the situation, like I said it was mine, could you include some opinion language to indicate such? > a_svirn: > You keep saying that elves are slaves because they want to > serve, as if it were some sort of an axiom, but in fact, they > are slaves because they are OWNED. Mike: No I don't. I say they are slaves by virtue of their organic make-up, that it is their nature to be slaves. They may have come to "want" to serve, but from time immemorial they have been *compelled* to serve by their very nature. If you can show me how my reading elves being slaves as their natural state is wrong, as I've invited above, please do. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180962 > SSSusan: > > > I am decidedly NOT using the arguments used in 1700-1800s America > *the way those arguments were used* then. Of course those were > excuses, and the slaves weren't speaking for themselves. We have > a mixture of wizard ("master class") comments and elf comments and > actions to go on in HP. Mike: Yes, thank you SSSusan. I have been trying to say in as many ways that I know how that I view house elf slavery significantly different than real world slavery. And I, like you, find it dismaying to be told that I'm some kind of apologist for Harry or for the WW in general in taking my viewpoint. > Betsy: > Then why are those arguing in support of house-elf slavery using > the exact same arguments those in support of African-slavery used > back in the day? Mike: First, we are NOT arguing in *support* of house elf slavery. I find slavery just as repulsive as you undoubtedly do. I am arguing *what* I read the house elf story was informing me on; respect for other cultures. Second, my argument has never been that they are "happy as slaves" for not changing it. In fact, I would be happy if they could change it, I don't know that that is possible. I don't know that house elves can be anything other than slaves and *exist*. Third, my argument was that they are not humans, but that you have to equate them to humans to equate their slavery to human slavery. That was the fallicy I was trying to point out when I was saying that they are NOT animals like RW dogs. If you are going to apply RW values to this situation, you would have to think of them as dogs if you are telling me you are not equating their state to human slavery. But I don't believe you think of elves as dogs, I believe you think of them as humans when you apply RW values to their situation. Finally, I don't *have* to equate this to human slavery when I find that this is different kind of slavery. And just because I purport to understand the hows and whys of this fantasy world, doesn't mean I approve of it in a real world capacity. > Carol: > The thing is, we don't *know* that House-Elves' nature is > "culturally induced." (Isn't that a contradiction in terms) > SSSusan: > I agree. It's inconclusive from canon, though we also have people > *saying* it's their "nature." True, it's wizards like Ron who say > this, but it's not like the Weasleys had a house elf that they'd > spent decades abusing and needed to have an excuse for saying it. > Is there a reason why what we see and hear from the elves, > coupled with comments from wizards, can't indicate the possibility > that their alleged nature is their nature? Mike: :Raises hand: That's me, I read house elf slavery as their nature. I also agree that if we had only the wizards words on the situation, we could easily put that down to bias. But we have the words of the elves themselves. Hermione takes the approach that they don't know any better. Canon told me that they do, and that they rejected Hermione's approach. Why they reject it is the debate. Is it out of respect for wizard law (and wizard placed enchantments?) that compels them, or is it in their very nature to be slaves and they *can't* reject their nature? > > Betsy: > > Part of the charm of the series was supposed to be the > > connection to the RW I'd thought. > > SSSusan: > For some, I'm sure that's true... but there has never been > agreement amongst HpfGUers over how much that connection "should" > matter, nor the degree to which different fans focused on that. > Heh, for me, I thought part of the charm of a fantasy series like > HP was the escape it provided from the RW. zgirnius: I do read a lot of these genres. What you say is true, but it does not have to inform on RW slavery in the particular way you insist it does/ought to/must. It could also be in there on the RL need to understand other cultures before messing with them, as Hermione in GoF did not. Mike: My point exactly, zgirnius! That's the message I took from the house elf conditon. I made the perhaps irrational assumption that the author was not trying to tell me she thought slavery was OK. Yes also to SSSusan. I didn't read these books to be tied to the RL. Part of the attraction was JKR's ability to transport me to her world of magic and magical creatures. Yes, I reacted to the story as a human being would, I like to think of myself as human . But I tried to allow JKR to tell me the way things were in her world to get the most enjoyment out of the series. > Siriusly Snapey Susan, > who also appreciated Mike's example of the moving staircases > vs. "stairs." :) Mike, who thanks SSSusan for her explanation of why the search for a new term :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 21:16:52 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:16:52 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180977 Magpie: > I do, I admit, doubt that if Lucius Malfoy were the only house elf > owner in canon (along with perhaps Mr. Crouch) we'd generally > consider house elf slavery to just be slavery. Not just because > Harry wasn't doing it but because it wouldn't be presented as a > nice thing in any way. We wouldn't have the face of a "reluctant" > slave owner to deal with. The distinction between somebody like > Lucius and somebody like Harry does seem to be made both in the > books and in this thread, as if Harry being a guy who treats his > house elves better than we imagine Lucius treating his changes the > nature of their contract. I don't think it's about just trying to > absolve Harry, I think it's an argument in favor of what Harry > happens to wind up doing, which is totally excused in canon. In > this case Harry is a stand-in for the reader who has the same > attitude that's being argued here. SSSusan: I wish I understood your last remark better, but I'm afraid I don't. : ( I don't think I'm one of the ones who's been making a distinction between Lucius' & Harry's treatment of their elves in the thread, and so maybe that's why I'm not getting it. Alla: If I understand Magpie's remark correctly, I disagree with it for the very same reason I ( and you as well) objected to assumption about looking for new word as desire to absolve Harry or something. I think she is saying that she is assuming that had the books not introduced good guy owning a house elf, but only introduced bad guys doing it, we would not have doubt that this is anything else but slavery. As in, by introducing reluctant slave owner, the issue is clouded for us ( people who just do not see it as exact equivalent of human slavery, similar, but not quite), but if only bad guys were doing it, we would have no doubt that this is what it is - exact equivalent of human slavery. Am I right, Magpie? If I am, well, the answer is again, no absolutely not. I do not care who owns house elves in canon - Lucius Malfoy, Harry, Albus Dumbledore or Joe Shmoe. When I evaluate it, I look at the situation as I see it, not at how I view characters without this topic and then mix it up together. Betsy: It's a horror, imo. And to try and back away from it by calling it something *other* than slavery seems an attempt to candy-coat it. Alla: Your assumption is incorrect. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 21:18:23 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:18:23 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic resolutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180978 > Betsy Hp: > Ooh! Loaded words! *bg* It's not really me "insisting" that house- elf slavery "must" inform on RW slavery. It's JKR in introducing us to the concept through a slave aching to be free, and then introducing us to two other slaves in moments when their owners are subjecting them to a great deal of anguish. IOWs, it's really hard for me to work with the idea that all house-elves are happy with their lot when the three we get to know are so obviously miserable. > Carol responds: First, forgive me, but I don't know what "inform on" means. I thought it meant reporting a rule-breaker. As for JKR "insisting" that House-Elf slavery must, erm, comment on? be analogous to? be the same as? RW slavery, that's your interpretation. (Of course, we can bring in the interviews, but since they're so contradictory and unhelpful, I'd just as soon stay with the books). Let's look at what really happens in the books, shall we? Dobby the odd-ball House-Elf is unhappy serving "bad Dark wizards" who abuse him. Alone among the House-Elves that we encounter, he has decided that Harry Potter, who "defeated" the Dark Lord as a baby by having the spell intended to kill him deflected back onto his would-be murderer by no intention or act of his own, is the champion of House-Elves. (Kreacher, we learn much later, has a much different idea of which Wizard was the champion of House-Elves.) Dobby is not so much "aching to be free" as suffering intolerable abuse and "aching" to serve the noble Harry Potter instead of his enemies. His anxiety in CoS is entirely for Harry's life (which he ironically attempts to save by further endangering it, hexing his broom a la Quirrell). He never asks for freedom; he merely points out that he's compelled to serve his "family" and must punish himself if he disobeys or speaks ill of them. Granted, he's overjoyed to receive Harry's dirty sock, accidentally "given" to him by Lucius Malfoy, but I've already discussed what constitutes "freedom" for Dobby. Certainly, he's free from the Malfoys, but only to choose a new Wizard master, and he's still compelled to punish himself when he speaks ill of the new mistress of Hogwarts, Professor Umbridge. (Whether that's cultural conditioning or an enchantment that still applies after he's "free," I can't say.) Kreacher's being subjected to "a great deal of anguish" seems to me to be an exaggeration. Yes, Sirius abuses him psychologically, but he seems to take about as much damage from that as Harry does from Snape. IoW, the abuse (which is a far cry from the physical abuse that Dobby suffers) merely inflames his contempt for and hatred of the master who broke the heart of Kreacher's poor mistress. ("They say he's a murderer, too." Kreacher has no fondness for criminals, as his attitude toward the aptly nicknamed Dung attests.) Kreacher *chooses* to wear a dirty rag instead of a clean tea towel. *He* changes his appearance and behavior, willingly serving Harry as soon as he considers Harry worthy of his service. As for Winky's being subjected to "a great deal of anguish," the only anguish she suffers as the Crouches' servant is Crouch Sr.'s ignoring her fear of heights. But it was Winky's own idea to let Barty Jr. see the TWT. Had she not suggested that and Barty Sr. not given in, the entire plot of GoF could not have happened. HRH misread what's happening when she's trying to drag the recalcitrant Barty Jr. back to the tent. She's not being magically punished for leaving the tent. Her anguish (no quotation marks here) begins when Crouch Sr. "frees" her for reasons that he doesn't fully disclose (though Winky knows what they are). She does not blame Crouch Sr. for dismissing "bad Winky." She wants to come back to the master who needs her (and indeed he does, being under the Imperius Curse and trying to fight it). Neither Winky nor Kreacher wants to be free. Both are loyal to masters or mistresses whom they can no longer serve (the Blacks other than renegade Sirius being dead and Winky being "freed"). You can't just read the text to fit your interpretation or assume that, because sci-fi and fantasy literature in general equates fantasy slavery to RL human slavery (an unprovable contention, BTW), that JKR is also doing so. Her House-Elves are obviously derived from antecedents in folklore, with differences to fit the needs of her plots, just as her witches, wizards, mythical beasts, hags, giants, etc. are derived from mythology and folklore. (Hogwarts blends the previously separate worlds of mythology/folklore and British boarding schools. House-Elves as Wizard servants does something similar. Neither "slavery" nor education is the same in the WW as it is in the Muggle world, however analogous it may be in some respects.) > Betsy Hp: > I see the reluctance to call a slave a slave as avoiding the delving. Carol: And perhaps the insistence that House-Elf servitude is "slavery," ignoring canon evidence and rational arguments to the contrary, is, erm, begging the question? We are "delving," believe me. No one here is blithely taking the position that House-Elf "slavery" is different from human slavery for granted, and the idea that it perhaps ought to be called by a different name is not "avoiding the delving" or hiding from the truth but noting that the word "slavery" has the wrong connotations and the reality of slavery as it has historically been practiced is different from the *enchantment* that magically binds House-Elves to a particular place or family and from whatever compels them to serve Wizards, which seems to be a combination of their own psychology (the will to serve seems to be something they're born with) and some sort of enchantment that has no parallel, none whatever, in the history of RL slavery, in which *some* human beings are compelled by other human beings to be slaves. ALL House-Elves, even the "free" Dobby either serve or desire to serve Wizards. That cannot be said of human slaves. It was never true that all Black people were slaves, much less that they all *wanted* to serve White people. (Not all slaves were or are Black; not all masters were White. Some African natives sold other African natives from different tribes into slavery. As others have pointed out, Black slaves were sold in the market like cattle or produce in the American South. Nothing remotely comparable occurs with House-Elves.) Betsy HP: We are talking about creatures who are in a position where their owners can do *anything* to them. Carol: "Creatures." *Not* humans. And, again, you are exaggerating. Except for Dobby, who is forced to iron his hands by the enchantment that binds him to the Malfoys, and the anonymous House-Elf whom Slughorn uses to test for poison, we don't see House-Elves being forced to do anything horrendous. Follow the Malfoy boy (but not report anything bad about him). Work in the kitchens (which they enjoy doing). Bring Hepzibah Smith some boxes. Serve refreshments at Slughorn's party. They *refuse* to clean the Gryffindor common room because they're insulted by Hermione's attempt to trick them into "freeing" themselves. They don't want to be free, thank you very much. Betsy: ANYTHING. Kreacher was forced to kill himself for his owner. Carol: Erm, what? Kreacher is still alive at the end of the story. If you mean that Regulus "forced him to kill himself," Regulus didn't know why Voldemort needed a House-Elf and naively volunteered Kreacher for the "honor." Once he knew what Voldemort had done, he sacrificed *himself* to steal Voldemort's Horcrux and made sure that Kreacher went back to 12 GP with it. Like Harry with Dumbledore before they entered the cave, he was ordered to leave *Regulus* to die and save himself (along with the locket that he was supposed to destroy). Not even Voldemort (who was not Kreacher's master) forced him to kill himself (though he certainly expected him to do so). The Dark Lord underestimated Kreacher's abilities and his loyalty. Betsy HP: > He was forced to betray a family he loved for his owner. Carol: When? How so? I'm afraid that I simply don't know what you're talking about. The only person that Kreacher "betrayed" (and I think that's an exaggeration since he merely went to the family member to whom he felt most loyal and was used by her and her husband) was Sirius, the master whom *he* felt had betrayed the Black family's values and broken his mother's (Kreacher's mistress's) heart. Betsy: Dobby was forced to torture himself for his owner. Carol: For his owner? It was the enchantment--not placed by the Malfoys--that forced him to punish himself (though, granted, the Malfoys also abused him for their own pleasure--not a necessary component of House-Elf servitude, merely an indication that the Malfoys were "bad Dark wizards." Betsy: And Winky was brutally reminded that she was property, not family, by a man she obviously loved, her owner. Carol: Brutally "freed," do you mean? She would have much preferred to remain "property," serving the master who needed her. ("Winky is doing much more than cleaning house!" as she snippily informs Harry or Hermione when they "is nosing into her master's business." Quoted from memory from GoF, so pardon any errors.) > Betsy: > It's a horror, imo. And to try and back away from it by calling it something *other* than slavery seems an attempt to candy-coat it. Carol: The "horror" is the enchantment that makes them punish themselves, not their service to wizards in and of itself. No one is trying to "candy-coat" it. we're trying to examine it objectively to determine its nature and its differences from RL slavery. PLEASE don't attribute motives to fellow posters that they don't have just because we disagree with you. Betsy HP: > Of course, House-elves *are* different. The parallels aren't exact. Carol: Which is exactly what the rest of us have been arguing. Thank you. Betsy: > Because while JKR wanted us to hate the Malfoys for owning a slave, she wanted us to still love slave-owning Harry. Carol: First, I thought that you and I agreed about the futility of trying to determine JKR's intentions. However, for the sake of argument, if she did "intend" for us to hate the Malfoys, it was not because they were "slave owners" (or, more correctly, House-Elf owners). It was because they *abused* their House-Elf. Harry, who inherited a House-Elf against his will, cannot free him even after the defeat of Voldemort because Kreacher doesn't want to be freed. (Even Sirius says as much, IIRC.) We are not supposed to "love slave-owning Harry." We are (assuming that I've guessed JKR's "intention" correctly) supposed to admire Harry as the savior of the WW who has come to terms with Kreacher and learned to treat his House-Elf (not slave) as that House-Elf (not slave) wants to be treated--and that includes letting him serve "Master Harry" Master Harry's favorite treacle tarts--or bacon sandwiches. > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > > > A house-elf *cannot* say no to their master. It doesn't matter > > what they're asked to do, it doesn't matter what their personal feelings are on the matter, a house-elf CANNOT SAY NO. > > > > > > >>Carol: > > Then what's this enchantment that makes them iron their hands if > they disobey their masters? > > Betsy Hp: > That would be the enchantment that makes a house-elf unable to say > no. What makes a house-elf a slave. *bg* Carol: No. Sorry. They're two different things. The enchantment that forces a House-Elf to punish himself is not the same thing as a House-Elf being owned by a particular family whom he is apparently bound to serve by a different enchantment. Eliminate the enchantment that forces the House-Elf to punish himself and he'll still be a "slave" by your definition (serving the family that owns him, in most cases willingly). He will simply no longer be forced to punish himself for disobedience. As for not saying "no"--if he couldn't say "no" and refuse to obey the order, he wouldn't be compelled to punish himself for disobedience, would he? > > > >>Carol, who thinks ending *that* enchantment (if possible) would> resolve the problem > > Betsy Hp: > I agree. Because at that point, the house-elf would no longer be owned. They'd have choice. Carol: Forgive me, but you're mistaken. They would still be owned. They would simply stop punishing *themselves* for disobedience. Suppose that the Malfoys owned Dobby, abusing him as they do for whatever reason, and he secretly went to Harry Potter, as he does in CoS, but he could speak ill of them and reveal their secrets without having to punish himself. We'd have no banging of heads on dressers or bashing heads with lamps in Harry's room. *The Malfoys are not there. THEY are not making Dobby punish himself. He is doing it without their knowledge because the enchantment compels him to do it, NOT because the Malfoys own him.* As for the choice to disobey when that enchantment is removed, I doubt that House-Elves who weren't abused would make that choice. The question, of course, is whether that enchantment can be removed. "Freeing" a House-Elf by giving him clothes doesn't do it, as Dobby clearly demonstrates. And "freeing" a House-Elf against his or her will is just another form of abuse. Carol, happy that we both think that the self-punishment enchantment is a bad thing but not agreeing that it's the same thing as ownership, which exists in RL slavery without any such enchantment From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 25 21:46:00 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:46:00 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 6-11 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180979 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: Alla: > "Ah,yes," - he said softly, "Harry Potter. Our new - celebrity" - > p.136. > Hee, the infamous first potion lesson. No, it did not appear to me > in a new light all together, still hate what Snape did here, BUT I > have a question. Why doesn't he just say "our celebrity"? Who was > celebrity before Harry, the old celebrity? > > Is it a reference to James? Is it a reference to Tom Riddle or > somebody else? Geoff: Interesting, Alla, the different interpretations we can put on something like this. I have always read this as meaning that Harry is 'new' to the school - i.e. a new pupil and nothing more sinister or hidden than that. But I, like Winnie-the-Pooh, am a bear of little brain and far too often take bits in books at face value. I would never make a Holmes or a Columbo.... :-) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 25 21:49:49 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:49:49 -0000 Subject: What if Harry had Tourette's. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180980 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: Finwitch: > Imagine Harry having this syndrome since the age of one (say from the > moment he got that scar), and worsening towards age eleven. What would > happen? Geoff: A possible silly question. I am somewhat puzzled as to why you are considering the possiblity of Harry having this condition? What relevance has it got to the story line? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Jan 25 22:00:36 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:00:36 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180981 > Magpie wrote: > > > You seem to be arguing that since elves > > don't want freedom and want to be owned, it's not slavery, yet canon > > has given us plenty of examples of elves unhappy because they don't > > have the freedom to follow their own desires. The whole idea > > that "it's natural" glides over the numerous examples of elves > > acting against their own desires and wills thanks to their position. > > > > Carol responds: > > The only kind of "will" that House-Elves seem to have is to serve a > master that they think is deserving, which is why Dobby and Kreacher > rebel in their respective ways. Dobby wants to be a "Free Elf"-- free > to serve Harry Potter (and/or work for dumbledore to earn just enough > money to buy socks. He doesn't want too much time off because he > "likes work better"). Kreacher, too, likes to work and does it > voluntarily once he and his new master come to a mutual understanding. > Winky hates her "freedom," and uses it to become a miserable drunkard > because she wants to return to her beloved master. Magpie: A will to serve a master they think is deserving is a perfectly fine will. It's one they share with plenty of humans. It's a will that they're unable to assert when they're owned by somebody else. Carol: > Where do we see a single House-Elf who wants what human beings call > freedom? Do they want to vote? Not that I know of. Do they want to > open a business and become entrepreneurs or write textbooks or train > security Trolls or start an eel farm or open a chocolate factory? Not > that I know of. *They want to work for Wizards in Wizard houses* (in > most cases, one that they or their ancestors have been magically > associated with for generations or centuries or perhaps millennia). > What they don't want is to be abused. Magpie: Dobby and Kreacher both want freedom when they don't want to serve their masters--even that little thing takes a measure of freedom they don't have. These other things like the right to vote or open a business or start an eel farm aren't freedom. Sure they don't want to be abused either--neither do most free people. But Dobby even *uses* the word free to describe what he wants. It's so important to him that Harry puts it on his tombstone. It changes the way he's viewed by every character. How is it not freedom because he's a free person who likes to work and that his work consists in large part of domestic chores? Carol: > All a House-Elf wants (and that includes the so-called Free Elf, > Dobby) is a Wizard master or mistress that he can respect and who > treats him well. *Why not listen to the House-Elves* and believe what > they say (or what their actions show)? Magpie: I don't see how you're believing them when Dobby has asked for freedom and you're claiming that what he really wants to be is a slave. With Dobby, at least, he does say that he wants freedom. Secondly the right to serve a master or mistress that you can respect requires that you be able to choose your master, which they can't do as long as they're slaves. Dobby and Kreacher both take actions to gain some freedom to do what they want rather than what their master wants. Dobby is proud of being able to bargain for his own salary even if he's making it lower. Carol: > If, like human slaves, they wanted to be like their masters (making > money, owning property, *not* working if they can help it), it would > be different. But their nature and their values are clearly not ours. Magpie: You don't have to want to be like your master in owning property and making money to want to be free. > Carol, who would be very happy indeed to own a House-Elf, who, in > turn, would be happy to work for me because I would treat her as she > wants to be treated Magpie: You like to think. But if there was ever a conflict she'd be unable to seek a mistress who conformed more to her wishes. SSSusan: And yet the whole disregarding of elves not WANTING freedom strikes me as gliding over something significant, too. You want to get away from the elves; and I do not want to do so, for that is where I see the fundamental difference that makes me see this as something different from human, RW slavery. Magpie: Sorry about lumping different arguments together here--a la "DDM! Snape=awesome guy all around!" It's confusing because people are making different arguments from different angles, and I probably have been mistaken about what the overall position is sometimes. I actually really enjoy this topic--I like looking at what the bizarre situation of house elves adds up to in the end. There *are* real life humans who thrive as slaves. It might not be what you'd expect from your average person, but it's not outside human nature to choose the security of slavery over freedom. There are humans who make exactly this choice--they join cults, for instance, where they are exploited even while refusing to leave. I actually think an attraction to slavery is a real part of human nature (and not just those who are into S&M!). House elves love of serving others does make their jobs seem like a natural fit in this case--since house elves love to do housework and humans live in houses, they make a nice fit. That for me leads to the obvious question: why this system we're calling or not calling slavery? Why not just let them do their thing without actually being owned or being unable to choose their own masters when they want to? Why'd they have to ruin that, and was it house elves or Wizards who ruined it? It seems like the natural thing is being turned into something else by them being owned. Nobody's natural state can include being "owned" by anyone, because "property" is a man-made thing. There are differences from human slaves, of course--there's plenty of specific characteristics to house elves that are unique to them: the magical bond, the self-punishment enchantment, their particular language, their cultural attitude about being given clothes, the special magic they can do, their dress etc. Actually, this is making me think of a discussion I had years ago with somebody about the Bible. I probably shouldn't go into the whole conversation because that's a new kettle of fish, but one person said that the slavery mentioned in the Bible "wasn't like US slavery" in the same way that house elf ownership is not like human slavery. The argument in this case wasn't that the slaves themselves had a different attitude towards slavery, but one based on the terms of enforcement. But the idea was still that whatever we thought of as slavery didn't apply there. Magpie: > To use the "just because it looks like slavery doesn't mean it is" > argument in yet another way, just because house elves look like > they want to be slaves doesn't mean they actually do. SSSusan: Then WHY have they run away from the opportunity to not be slaves? I don't understand why that point gets pooh-poohed. Several Hogwarts HEs are offered freedom via Hermione's hats. They run away from them. Why do we need to assume they don't *actually* want to be slaves, if they're showing us that they don't want to take the freedom offered to them? Magpie: Because they are looking at it in a short-sighted way? The elves at Hogwarts are happy and don't want to leave their situation. But when they're in a situation where they're unhappy Dobby and Kreacher *do* want to follow their own desires rather than being forced to do things that are painful to them. Kreacher wished to be able to serve one of the other Blacks rather than Sirius and later wished to serve Draco rather than Harry--I believe he says that. If Kreacher is really happy with all the conditions of *slavery* (rather than just the conditions in which he once served) then why isn't he thrilled to help clean out Grimmauld Place or follow Draco or cook nice hot meals for Sirius? He's getting what he wants there, isn't he? I do think that house elves' own understanding should be taken into account. That's why Hermione's attempts at freedom are just condescending and no more respectful of elves as individuals than somebody who doesn't care about them at all. We also have to take into account that, as per DH, house elves seem to lack the ability to think far enough ahead or even understand things from a wide viewpoint. No elf besides Dobby really seems to *understand* freedom, so of course Hermione's talk of it makes no sense to them. (This inability to understand may very well be a cultural thing rather than any limit in their brain power, though.) That's why it seems to me that any Wizard committed to changing things might need to focus on this from their pov rather than the elves. They've been given a very big temptation in house elves, however it came about (and Wizards already have a weak spot when it comes to thinking might makes right). In order for an individual house elf owner to keep himself from really crossing the line he'd have to have a lot of self-discipline and a real commitment to not being a slave-owner despite owning this thing, because even little things that wouldn't mean much between friends are tainted by the ownershp. For instance, if commitment against what I consider slavery was my top priority, I might consider it my duty to tell Kreacher to go serve Narcissa or Draco when he indicated he would rather do so. At least from my end, if I'd done that, I would be treating him as a free person, allowing him the freedom to go where he wanted to go. I couldn't insure that Narcissa or Draco would make similar choices, of course, but *I* would have stayed committed to my position on house elves if that's what it was. (Not saying I would have done that, since that would have put me in danger.) Really that idea would be taking what house elves do and just turning it on its head. No matter how eagerly they pushed their rights as an individual away, I would artificially give them back. They would be handing me the Elder Wand, but I would truly be refusing to use it. Alla: As in, by introducing reluctant slave owner, the issue is clouded for us ( people who just do not see it as exact equivalent of human slavery, similar, but not quite), but if only bad guys were doing it, we would have no doubt that this is what it is - exact equivalent of human slavery. Am I right, Magpie? Magpie: Yes, but not because you're morally lacking.:-) Mostly because it's the reluctant owners and those who question the lot of house elves that make us see the pride house elves take in their situation. It's not until GoF when Hermione starts telling house elves they should be free that they really get a chance to show how their own culture works. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 23:02:53 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:02:53 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180982 > Carol: > > The only kind of "will" that House-Elves seem to have is to serve a > master that they think is deserving, which is why Dobby and Kreacher > rebel in their respective ways. Dobby wants to be a "Free Elf"--free > to serve Harry Potter a_svirn: If it were true, why didn't he offer his services to Harry? He spent an entire year applying for various jobs and never once approached Harry. Besides, he wanted to be employed, not to be owned by a congenial master. > Carol: (and/or work for dumbledore to earn just enough > money to buy socks. He doesn't want too much time off because he > "likes work better"). a_svirn: So what if he is? Is it a justification for putting him under magical and legal constraints? > Carol: Kreacher, too, likes to work and does it > voluntarily once he and his new master come to a mutual understanding. a_svirn: I still don't get how liking to work and even wanting to serve translates into wanting to be someone's property. Much less anyone's property. > Carol: > Winky hates her "freedom," and uses it to become a miserable drunkard > because she wants to return to her beloved master. a_svirn: Winky hates herself. She failed her beloved master and the whole family was endangered because of it. And came to an ignominious end. > Carol: > Where do we see a single House-Elf who wants what human beings call > freedom? a_svirn: And what do humans normally call freedom? Exemption from slavery? Dobby certainly wanted that. Liberation from an arbitrary and autocratic control? Both Dobby and Kreacher wanted that. Liberty of action? Again Dobby and Kreacher wanted that. Freedom of choice? Here we go again: Dobby and Kreacher wanted that. Winky did not wanted all those things perhaps. But then she though herself a privileged servant entrusted as she was with an important mission and dangerous secrets. She cherished her privilege and grieved when she lost it. But, then, you know, the same is true for real live slavery. Those slaves who have privileged positions hold onto them. What else? Wages? Well, Dobby wanted them too, not that it has anything to do with slavery per se. > Carol: Do they want to vote? a_svirn: Goodness, you almost sound like Hermione. And how do you know that they don't want to vote? Then again, do I wonder, wizards want to vote? It doesn't look like they have general elections. > Carol: > All a House-Elf wants (and that includes the so-called Free Elf, > Dobby) is a Wizard master or mistress that he can respect and who > treats him well. *Why not listen to the House-Elves* and believe what > they say (or what their actions show)? a_svirn: Yes, why not. Kreacher cried "I won't! I won't", and as Dumbledore said, pointing out the obvious, he objected very much to pass into Harry's ownership. As for Dobby, he wanted an employer, not master. He was careful to make this distinction. Moreover even if he had wanted a kind master it would not have made him a slave. I can wait on you, cook for you and clean for you, and even grovel before you, but all this would not make me your slave as long as I am free to disobey and to walk away from you whenever I choose. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 23:23:06 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:23:06 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180983 > > a_svirn: > > And what if it is? Goblins with their contempt for private > > property are nothing like real life bankers either. Still we > > recognise them as bankers. > > Mike: > I'm curious, do you find goblins' notion of ownership inappropriate > for bankers? Or do you think it is their culture and, therefore, > wizards should respect that culture, accede to their position? a_svirn: Well, of course I do find their notions inappropriate for bankers. I wouldn't entrust my money to someone who does not have a healthy respect for my property and questions my very right to possess it. I don't understand why wizards do so, but it's their look-out. > Mike: > Now we may be getting down to the nut of it. I've said that I think > the elves being slaves is their natural state of being. a_svirn: It can't be their *natural* anything because slavery is a *social* institution, not natural element. They may be naturally predisposed to serve wizards, yes, but that does not what make them slaves. Wizarding customs and laws enforced by magic is what makes them slaves. > Mike: That's the > way I read the books. Now you seem to be saying that it's *canon* > that they are enslaved by wizard *law*. Are you saying there is > canon that says that house elves are slaves by virtue of legal > constraints? Could you give me the canon that you're referencing? a_svirn? ?!! The fact that Sirius can bequeath Kreacher? Obviously by wizarding law it is a legal procedure. Obviously it is legal to own house-elves. > > a_svirn: > > You keep saying that elves are slaves because they want to > > serve, as if it were some sort of an axiom, but in fact, they > > are slaves because they are OWNED. > > Mike: > No I don't. I say they are slaves by virtue of their organic make- up, > that it is their nature to be slaves. They may have come to "want" to > serve, but from time immemorial they have been *compelled* to serve > by their very nature. If you can show me how my reading elves being > slaves as their natural state is wrong, as I've invited above, please > do. > a_svirn: Well, we know that they are compelled by magic, not by their organic make-up. You are not going to say that they have a chromosome responsible for wearing pillow-cases? That's a bit absurd. Pillow- cases, towels and socks are part of human culture, not elvish nature. And as Dobby said it is a symbol of their enslavement. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 25 23:40:37 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:40:37 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180984 > SSSusan: > Then WHY have they run away from the opportunity to not be slaves? I > don't understand why that point gets pooh-poohed. Several Hogwarts > HEs are offered freedom via Hermione's hats. They run away from > them. Why do we need to assume they don't *actually* want to be > slaves, if they're showing us that they don't want to take the > freedom offered to them? > > Magpie: > Because they are looking at it in a short-sighted way? The elves at > Hogwarts are happy and don't want to leave their situation. a_svirn: And frankly we don't even know for sure that they are slaves. That was Hermione assumption, but too many of her assumptions were elves are concerned were too hasty. We don't know if they are owned, we don't know how they are owned. At the very least it would seem Hogwarts's elves are more like serfs than slaves, because they are bound ? IF they are bound at all ? to a place, rather than to a person. Moreover, Hogwarts itself is not a private possession (at least it doesn't seem to be the case) but a public institution. So, they are not even like serfs since the place they are bound to ? if they are ? isn't owned by anybody. So their position is very different from that of Kreacher, Winky and Dobby. And, as I said, we can't even be sure that there is any sort of bondage in evidence. All things considering they have a great deal to loose, and what did Hermione offer to them exactly? Grand lectures about things they don't understand? Insecurity? She did not know what she was about, and on top of that she was dishonest. It is no great wonder that they gave her a wide breadth. a_svirn From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 00:01:07 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:01:07 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 6-11 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180985 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > "Anyway, we've got to go, Lee Jordan reckons he's found a new secret > passageway out of the school." > "Bet it's that one behind the statue of Gregory the Smarmy that we > found in our first week. See you." - p.153 > Alla: > > Do you think that this exchange indicates that Twins do not have > Marauders map at this point in time yet? zanooda: The Twins stole the Map from Filch when they were in their first year (PoA, p.191), so they definitely had it at this point. However, we don't know how much time it took them to learn how to "work it". They certainly had to experiment a lot with the Map to find out how to activate it. As a matter of fact, I don't understand how it is possible to "guess" the right words ("I solemnly swear ... etc.) that activate the Map. Maybe the Twins managed to establish some kind of contact with the Map (like Snape in PoA) and it gave them a hint :-)? Or maybe Scabbers finally took pity of them, turned into PP one night and left them a note with instructions, LOL? Anyway, I just wanted to say that, even though F&G already had the Map when they were in their third year (Harry's first), it's possible that they didn't figure out how to activate it yet, especially if they stole it at the end of their first year, because the conversation you are referring to happened at the very beginning of their third year. Just one possible explanation :-). From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 02:08:34 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:08:34 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180986 > Alla: > I never argued that elves are like animals, but I most certainly > refuse to consider them to be RL equivalent of RL slaves, because to > me they are not. By virtue of living in a different society if > nothing else and of course by the fact that they do like to serve > and belong to wizards. Montavilla47: A different society from what? My society (United States) supposedly doesn't have slaves at all. So, contrasting the house-elf slaves from concept of slavery in my society as being different is quite odd, since we don't have slaves. (Barring a few illegal situations that one hears about, such as the company that imported Indian electronic workers and kept them as virtual slaves in their factory, or the distressingly common stories of women who are tricked into econmoic slavery and prostitution.) But I also remember reading a description of John Randolph, returning to his Virginia plantation (back when slavery was legal). According to this description, the 200 slaves were overcome with joy to see him, hugging him and crying, and clinging to his sleeves. I've always wondered, since reading that mini-passage, what was truly going on. Were these two hundred slaves really that happy to see the man who owned them? Was he (a well-known drunkard and foul tempered man) so much better than his neighbors that they wept so? Or was it an elaborate deception they pulled off in order to keep him feeling secure? Or perhaps an outright lie by the person writing that description? Whatever was going on, it sounds remarkably similar to the way that JKR depicts the house-elves, who are so eager to please the masters they love. To be honest, for me, it's quite understandable that in a society where slavery is practiced, that a slave could love his or her master and even prefer the security of slavery to the vaguaries of freedom. Those 1000 concubines of Solomon might have been very happy to be a concubine, rather than starving with their families. But, whether the slaves like it or not, slavery is still slavery. Since JKR herself used that word to describe the house-elf/wizard master relationship, and none of the characters in the books (even Ron, who opposes Hermione's SPEW attempts) bother to deny that description, I don't know why we're trying so hard to find another word. Surely, if the relationship were something different from slavery, then Ron would tell Hermione that, wouldn't he? Montavilla47 From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 02:10:05 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:10:05 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180987 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180981 > Magpie: > Nobody's natural state can include being "owned" by anyone, > because "property" is a man-made thing. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180983 > a_svirn: > It can't be their *natural* anything because slavery is a > *social* institution, not natural element. They may be naturally > predisposed to serve wizards, yes, but that does not what make > them slaves. Mike: Wait, let me get this straight! I've said that house elf slavery is different and the main reason was because of that whatever magical thing that forces them to serve wizards. You've insisted that it must still be called slavery and I've acquiesced to your term. Now, because I've allowed your term, you want to negate my "natural state" argument, because ownership and property are man-made concepts that pertain to "slavery". So, I guess I'm being forced back to my original position that It's. Not. Slavery.!! I'm not sure how that got us anywhere. I will say that my concept of house elves'origins was explained very nicely by Goddlefrood in his post #180948, up thread. I think the compunction to serve humans was there in the beginning, nobody had to enchant them, they were enchanted that way from their first breath. *If* they were originally tied to the land, like hobs or brownies, wizards changed that and tied them to wizarding families, which they were probably serving exclusively anyway. The change would have been part of the move to wizarding secrecy, though probably done before the formal 1692 statute. Some time in there, wizards came up with this cockamamie idea of self-punishment for disobedience or speaking ill or revealing family secrets. And that's where they are today. My canon? Every elf, including the freed Dobby has the compunction to serve wizards. Any elf can be freed, all they need to do is piss off their master to the degree that the master wants to free them. That they don't seem to want freedom may be culturally acquired - read: it's a disgrace - or it may simply be shortsightedness (thank you Magpie) through not realizing they can serve a different master. (BTW, Dobby knew perfectly well that Harry was not living in a wizarding household, so he could not serve Harry at #4 Privet Dr. He could and did serve Harry as well as Hogwarts after he signed on at Hogwarts. SERVED Harry, without pay). House elves are magically compelled to serve wizards. That doesn't make them property, that defines their existence. When Sirius died, Kreacher had no Black left to serve, so his service reverted to the house, #12 GP. When Harry inherited the house, he became Kreacher's master. "You see, ... if you have indeed inherited the house, you have also inherited --" [Kreacher] Wizarding law gave Harry the house, house elf enchantment made Harry Kreacher's master by virtue of his succession to the Black legacy, the house of a house elf. > > Mike: > > Now you seem to be saying that it's *canon* that they are > > enslaved by wizard *law*. Are you saying there is canon that > > says that house elves are slaves by virtue of legal constraints? > > Could you give me the canon that you're referencing? > > a_svirn? > ?!! The fact that Sirius can bequeath Kreacher? Obviously by > wizarding law it is a legal procedure. Obviously it is legal > to own house-elves. Mike: I didn't ask that. I left my original question up there. I wanted to know where in canon it said that house elves became slaves through a wizarding law. Not that it's legal, I know it's legal. But never mind. I'm sure I know canon as well as anyone (except Carol and Zanooda), and I know there is no point in canon where it says elves were free until wizards passed some law that made them slaves. > a_svirn: > You are not going to say that they have a chromosome > responsible for wearing pillow-cases? That's a bit absurd. Mike, who agrees and is therefore glad that you said it, not me ;) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 04:37:32 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:37:32 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180988 > > Alla: > > I never argued that elves are like animals, but I most certainly > > refuse to consider them to be RL equivalent of RL slaves, because to > > me they are not. By virtue of living in a different society if > > nothing else and of course by the fact that they do like to serve > > and belong to wizards. > > Montavilla47: > A different society from what? My society (United States) > supposedly doesn't have slaves at all. So, contrasting the > house-elf slaves from concept of slavery in my society > as being different is quite odd, since we don't have slaves. > Alla: Yes, that's my society for the last ten years and hopefully for the rest of my life as well. I thought it went without saying that contrast was with it when it had slaves, not when it does not, any society that had slaves ever, really. As opposed to imaginary society which has magic and house elves in it and whatever situation they are in - slavery, or not slavery at all, or slavery where slaves are not traded and do not want to be free. When I am giving the possibilities I am doing just that by the way - NOT asking anybody to use any term, just figuring out which term fits for me. Alla From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 06:05:28 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:05:28 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 6-11 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180989 "Not to worry," she said. " All you have to do is walk straight at the barrier between platforms nine and ten. Don't stop and don't be scared you'll crash into it, that's very important. Best do it at a bit of a run if you are nervous. Go on, go now before Ron" - p.93 > Alla: > > When I reread that lovely directions from Molly to Harry, I was > wondering whether this indicates that intent is very important in > performing the magic after all. I mean, "do not stop and do not be > scared" is an indication of intent to arrive at platform, no? Mike: Yes! I agree, and always thought that intent is a major part of magic. We now know that apparition requires a like thought process. My personal feeling on Dark Magic is that intent counts for alot there, too. ----------- "Anyway, we've got to go, Lee Jordan reckons he's found a new secret passageway out of the school." "Bet it's that one behind the statue of Gregory the Smarmy that we found in our first week. See you." - p.153 > Alla: > > Do you think that this exchange indicates that Twins do not have > Marauders map at this point in time yet? Mike: Oh, oh, my favorite magical object, and the one clearly full of Dark Magic - per the greasy-headed one. First, zanooda's right about when they acquired it. She's also right about not knowing how long it took them to master it. JKR's explanation was "can't you just see them trying all these combinations, and maybe getting glimmers of reveal when they came close." (paraphrased from memory) For myself, I like to think that the twins figured it out in their first year. But I wouldn't put it past them to have discovered several of the secret passages before that. When they say "in our first week", do you think they meant their first week of school? Cuz that's what I thought they were saying. I'll bet the reason Filch found about the four secret passages was because he caught the twins using them. We know he couldn't have opened the witches hump, he can't do magic. I'm thinking some magic, or at least a wand and magical ability was needed for all of them, besides the Whomping Willow. ---------------------- "But Hermione had given Harry something else to think about as he climbed back into bed. The dog was guarding something... What had Hagrid said? Gringotts was the safest place in the world for something you wanted to hide - except perhaps Hogwarts. It looked as though Harry had found out where the grubby little package from vault seven hundred and thirteen was." - p.162 > Alla: > > I don't know about anybody else, but I am really impressed with > Harry's ability to think and put two and two together here. Heee, > Hermione would be so proud. But anyways, to me it foreshadowed > that sometimes when he puts himself to it, he could figure out > stuff, not just act without thinking. :) Mike: I'd forgotten about this clever bit of deductive reasoning. It was a shame that it abandoned him in OotP when he saw the Sirius vision. At least he seemed to get it back by DH. I wanted to add that in these chapters we got our first Sorting Hat song. I noted there was nothing about blood, only cunning mentioned with regard to Slytherin qualities. Still, it wasn't a very flattering picture painted of the Slyth's with the "use any means [t]o achieve their ends". From tiger_queen429 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 12:17:08 2008 From: tiger_queen429 at yahoo.com (tiger_queen429) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:17:08 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180990 I was a huge fan of Harry Potter. I loved the interesting world and all the characters in it. It's just the more I think about them, the more I feel that the books are very anti-woman. I know that this has been said before, but I keep thinking that the horrible way that JKR treats women. Harry Potter is set in what I can best describe as an idealized version of the United States in the 1950's. Women can be smart and successful as long as they do not even think about marriage or a family. Women are either mothers or workers; they can't be both. Men can have any type of job they want and a family, usually with some degree of success. If you look at the way the sexually active women are treated through out the book, you can see the way that these women are portrayed in two roles: sex objects and mothers. Here are some examples: Lily Potter: She has no identity outside the men in her life. I was waiting for DH to see about her past, maybe one of her female friends would be of help to Harry. The only thing we find out is that Snape is good because of his obsessive love for Lily, her feelings for him do not matter. When Harry goes back to the same memory of the OWLS, his focus on Snape, not Lily. Harry survived Voldemort's attack because Lily, the mother, protected her son. The only contact we see Lily having is with James's friends: the letter to Sirius and tea with Bathilda. Where are her friends other than Snape? Did she get married then drop all contact? Sirius was James's best friend. Where are Lily's best friends? We have all this talk about Lily being great magical abilities, but that amounts to nothing. James, despite being portrayed as a jerk, at least has the fact that he's an Animagi and the Marauder's Map as proof of his skills. Lily has nothing. She's portrayed only as Snape and James's sex object and as Harry's mother. Fluer Weasley: Fluer was one of my favorite characters. However, despite all of her potential as a minor character, she is portrayed as a sex symbol. I thought she had so much potential after GF. A talented witch, the champion of her school going to work, I thought she would be a symbol of a woman who could have it all: beauty, talent, and romance. (I understand that she had to be the one to not complete the Second Task because Harry had to prove his saving random people, not just his friends, complex.) But she falls far short. Fluer does not even work full time. When we first see her in HBP, right after Harry calls her his "image of perfection" when she brings him a tray of food, she is quick to let Harry know that as an engaged woman, she only has a part time job. She comes across as vain and wedding obsessed. Because women only care about getting married. Tonks: Tonks was an interesting character in OP. Then she loses all of her coolness. In OP, Tonks is not a real woman, because she can't manage any household spells and is pretty clumsy. By HBP, she loses her power because she isn't loved by Remus. She isn't seen as a sex symbol, so therefore she can't have any magical ability. In DH, she is happy because she is pregnant, but can no longer take care of herself. Even though she is an Auror; she has to live with her parents because Remus does not have a way to support herself. Tonks had pretty good job, Even though Voldy has taken over, it seems odd that she does not have any money saved up or any other way to support her family. Ginny: Ginny in HBP becomes a sex symbol. All the boys talk about how cute she is and her brothers worry that she dates too much. She stands up for Harry after he does Dark Magic and nearly kills Draco. I see this as an example of Ginny being a mother to Harry, protecting by sticking up for him. Then in DH, when everyone is arguing for her not to fight in the final battle, she looks to Harry, and when he says no, that is the final answer for now. She does disobey Harry later, but that is not done directly. Ginny never shows the fiery spirit that Harry loves so much about her to Harry. We never see it in the book. That is the reason I am not a Harry/Ginny shiper, you never see a time when Ginny shows the spirit everyone talks about in front of Harry. She never goes against him. Hermione: Hermione is the strongest of all female characters. However, she is portrayed mostly as a mother, and only sometimes as a sex symbol. She is the voice of reason, the rule book, and the source of wisdom. In DH she takes care of Harry and Ron. She is the one who finds and cooks the food and heals the wounds. Her talents are mostly used in the previous books to emphasis right and wrong and to help Harry and Ron with their homework (like a mother would do). You never really see her having fun except when she is out with Victor, but then she looks so different that Harry doesn't even recognize her. Molly Weasley: Molly is seen as the ultimate mother. It appears that she never works outside the home. I can understand this if there is no daycare in the WW, but after SS/PS there is no reason for Molly not to work. She has no kids at home to take care of, and the family could certainly use the money. I'm sure that there are some types of jobs that would allow for summertime off or reduced hours. All I am saying is that in CS, PA, and GF, Molly could have a job to help her family. Working Women: There are only two examples of working women in the books. One is Marietta Edgecome's mother. She works for the Ministry. As the largest example of a working mother in the books, we can see that something is wrong with a working mother even though the one child we know about is only home for about two and a half months out of the year. Marietta a is sneak! She betrayed Harry! We can't like her and her family for teaching her not to love Harry! The only thing we can take from this is that working mothers teach their kids bad morals! The only other mention of a working mother is Hermione's mother who is a dentist. >From this story, I can see that JKR makes women not on the same level as men. No woman is seen as the equal of Voldy or DD. McGonagall and Bellatrix are good second in commands, but not the equals of the men they follow. A woman that tries to have both is not portrayed at all. Women are not seen on the same level as men. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Jan 26 14:43:37 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:43:37 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 6-11 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180991 > > Alla: > "Ah,yes," - he said softly, "Harry Potter. Our new - celebrity" - > p.136. > > Alla: > > Hee, the infamous first potion lesson. No, it did not appear to me > in a new light all together, still hate what Snape did here, BUT I > have a question. Why doesn't he just say "our celebrity"? Who was > celebrity before Harry, the old celebrity? > > Is it a reference to James? Is it a reference to Tom Riddle or > somebody else? Potioncat: For that matter, what does "Our" mean? 'Harry Potter. The new celbrity, or Harry Potter. The celebrity'......all work. But the rhythm is particularly good the original way. >From a post-DH standpoint and post-multiple-inteview standpoint----we know that Snape genuinely dislikes Harry. He has a mistaken impression of him. The very first sentence of Chapter 8 The Potions Master has to do with Harry's celebrity. The students are staring and whispering and changing their routes to get a glimpse of him. Surely Snape would have been well aware of it. The chapter switches to a sort of summary of Harry's first week and draws up to the first Potions class. Before Harry even gets to class we're told: 1)Snape favors Slytherins; 2)that potions will be the worse thing that has happened; 3)Harry had gotten the idea at the banquet that Snape disliked him: 4)Snape hates him. Clearly, both Harry and Snape have an impression before they even meet. In an interview several years ago, JKR said that some of the WW thought that Harry must be a powerful Dark Wizard to have vanquished LV as a baby. I always thought that the Slyhterin students would be of that mind, and that Snape was quizing Harry in order to disprove it to them. Now that we know how little DD communicated, I wonder if Snape also suspected Harry might have Dark powers. > Alla: > > Do you think that this exchange indicates that Twins do not have > Marauders map at this point in time yet? Potioncat: I think it indicates that JKR slipped up on this one. Unless the map was not as clear when they first found it as it is when they give it to Harry. They're pretty tallented; they might have improved upon it. > > > "Hardly anyone had seen Harry play because Wood had decided that, as > their secret weapon, Harry should be kept, well, secret." - p.180. > Alla > I know it is reference to Qudditch, but I cannot help but remember > that Harry as a secret weapon motive goes through OOP and cannot > help but read this line with it in mind as well. Potioncat: Harry had already been kept secret for nearly 11 years. As well having secrets kept from him. The layers of secrets in this series is astounding. Thanks Alla for this look back at SS/PS! From ironchefe3 at comcast.net Sat Jan 26 14:59:58 2008 From: ironchefe3 at comcast.net (l.anne120) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:59:58 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180992 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tiger_queen429" wrote: > > I was a huge fan of Harry Potter. I loved the interesting world and > all the characters in it. It's just the more I think about them, the > more I feel that the books are very anti-woman. I know that this has > been said before, but I keep thinking that the horrible way that JKR > treats women. Harry Potter is set in what I can best describe as an > idealized version of the United States in the 1950's. Women can be > smart and successful as long as they do not even think about marriage > or a family. Women are either mothers or workers; they can't be both. > Men can have any type of job they want and a family, usually with > some degree of success. If you look at the way the sexually active > women are treated through out the book, you can see the way that > these women are portrayed in two roles: sex objects and mothers. Here > are some examples: I disagree. I won't answer point by point, but I think if we recall that we see everything from the oblique perspective of Harry's point of view, it could certainly seem as if the women are marginalized. JKR, speaking of Mrs. Weasly, described her as quite a powerful witch who did what many women did - made a choice about how to live her life, favoring raising a family over a more public life. Harry only sees her as a mother figure because that is Harry's only experience of her. In the battle of Hogwarts, however, we see a very different witch, a formidable foe who ultimately vanquishes Belatrix. And, are you forgetting that Ginny was not only the popular girl, but was also a Quiddich star? One of the reasons she is so popular with the boys (and one of the reasons Harry seems to fall in love with her) is because she is so fluently conversant on the subject of wizard sports. Having grown up with boys, she understands them and, that ease with men makes her immensely popular. But to dismiss her as mere eye candy does a disservice to the depths of the portrait that JKR draws. She, too, shows some heroic flair in the battle of Hogwarts, but again, we only see a bit of this because we are limited by Harry's perspective. The perspective problem is particularly acute when it comes to the past which Harry has such limited access to. Why none of Lily's female friends show up in her life is not something we can answer, although, give the state of siege in the wizarding community and how cut off James and Lily were at the time of their deaths, it makes sense that after school, she fell out of touch with anyone who was not a member of the Order. And because Harry learns everything he knows about Lily from Snape's memories (which is, in and of itself, quite a telling detail) it again makes sense that we can know very little. But let's recall how Lupin (at least in the movie) and Slughorn remembered her to Harry: kind, compassionate and tremendously smart. Something of a genius in potions, if Slughorn is to be believed. We don't see her as anything other than Harry's mother, but she was a member of the Order and we don't know what she was asked to do or how she exercised her talents in the months after she left Hogwarts, married James and was finally isolated by the fidelius charm. There are countless other examples that I think depict a full range of women - good and bad, strong and weak; Dolores Umridge, for example, who is as crafty and conniving (and probably quite smart in spite of her nastiness). We don't get to see the living Bathilda, but we know how important a contribution she makes to the Wizarding community. And what about Rita Skeeter? She is a caricature, but the depiction of her through negative stereotype does not, I think, amount to misogyny. Luna is also a bit of a caricature, but we get a brief glimpse of her mother who, though absent, was also something of a brilliant witch. I like the range of female characters in HP. But, because JKR's principle character is an adolescent boy (and we could talk all day about what that means) and not an adolescent girl, we limited in what we can know. However, I think JKR does a respectable job of fleshing out the story, populating it with secondary characters, male and female, who show a lot of wit and nuance. ironchef From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 16:39:01 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:39:01 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic resolutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180993 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > It's not really me "insisting" that house-elf slavery "must" > > inform on RW slavery. It's JKR in introducing us to the concept > > through a slave aching to be free, and then introducing us to two > > other slaves in moments when their owners are subjecting them to > > a great deal of anguish. IOWs, it's really hard for me to work > > with the idea that all house-elves are happy with their lot when > > the three we get to know are so obviously miserable. > >>Carol responds: > First, forgive me, but I don't know what "inform on" means. I > thought it meant reporting a rule-breaker. Betsy Hp: Beauty of the English language, many meanings for various phrases. Here: http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/inform%20on Drop past the first two and there you go. ;) > >>Carol: > As for JKR "insisting" that House-Elf slavery must, erm, comment on? > be analogous to? be the same as? RW slavery, that's your > interpretation. Betsy Hp: Let's stick with "inform on" as I think it manages to convey all three suggestions (and more) quite elegantly. ;D But yes, I am interperting that JKR meant for us to sympathize with Dobby's condition, see his owners as morally bad, and cheer for Harry figuring out a way to get Dobby his freedom. All of which depends on us seeing house-elf slavery as a bad thing, as we see RL slavery. And I do suspect JKR expected her audience to have an immediate response to the use of the word "slave". That she backed our natural interpertation by giving us an abused slave longing to be free strikes me as suggestive that she wasn't trying to show a form of "good slavery". > >>Carol: > > You can't just read the text to fit your interpretation or assume > that, because sci-fi and fantasy literature in general equates > fantasy slavery to RL human slavery (an unprovable contention, > BTW), that JKR is also doing so. Betsy hp: Well, *of course* I can, Carol. That's the whole point of the list. Also, much as I'm sure you'd enjoy me falling into one of your false arguments, I'm not actually saying all sci-fi and fantasy literature "equates fantasy slavery to RL human slavery." You're absolutely right, it's an unprovable contention, and beyond that, it's not germane. As to what JKR meant to do... well that's a tangled question because I really feel JKR had no clue really. She threw things at a wall and hoped some of it stuck, no matter if there were contradictions. However, by introducing us to the concept of house-elves with an abused house-elf who wanted to be freed, by continuing down that road by having all three house-elves we meet also have a painful relationship with their owners, JKR certainly did a piss poor job setting up house-elf slavery as a good thing. > >>Carol: > Her House-Elves are obviously derived from antecedents in folklore, > with differences to fit the needs of her plots... Betsy Hp: Oh, obviously. And then she threw in slavery. And she never pulled us out of it. Which, again, I put down to sloppiness more than point making. First she needed something to show just how evil the bad wizards are, so she gave them slaves that were unhappy and abused. Then she needed Harry to have a slave, so she... well, she screwed up royally, IMO. Harry the happy slave-owner just doesn't have that heroic ring to it, IMO. (*Why* she wanted Harry to own a slave I really have no idea. Seriously, none.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > I see the reluctance to call a slave a slave as avoiding the > > delving. > >>Carol: > And perhaps the insistence that House-Elf servitude is "slavery," > ignoring canon evidence and rational arguments to the contrary, is, > erm, begging the question? Betsy Hp: Since canon calls house-elves "slaves" I don't see what I'm ignoring. > >>Carol: > We are "delving," believe me. No one here is blithely taking the > position that House-Elf "slavery" is different from human slavery > for granted, and the idea that it perhaps ought to be called by a > different name is not "avoiding the delving" or hiding from the > truth... Betsy Hp: Actually, I'd say it's very much hiding from the truth. House-elves are slaves. They are owned. They have no freedom of choice. > >>Carol: > ...and some sort of enchantment that has no parallel, none > whatever, in the history of RL slavery, in which *some* human > beings are compelled by other human beings to be slaves. > Betsy Hp: Right. House-elves are even more slaves than human slaves could ever be. Because of the use of magic, house-elves are in an even more horrifying condition than African slaves were. House-elves can be magically forced to not rebel. > >>Betsy HP: > We are talking about creatures who are in a position where their > owners can do *anything* to them. > >>Carol: > "Creatures." *Not* humans. Betsy Hp: Yes. Like Fluer or Hagrid or Flitwick. > >>Carol: > And, again, you are exaggerating. Betsy Hp: Am I? Kreacher was forced to kill himself. He was also forced to inform on (heh) the scion of a family he adored. From what I've seen in canon, house-elves cannot refuse a direct order. Which means, their owners can make them do whatever they want. IOWs, anything. > >>Betsy Hp: > ANYTHING. Kreacher was forced to kill himself for his owner. > >>Carol: > Erm, what? Betsy Hp: Erm... the deadly poison he was forced to drink? > >>Carol: > Kreacher is still alive at the end of the story. Betsy Hp: Lucky Kreacher. He was still forced to drink something that killed him. Just, he'd also been ordered to come back. (Good Lord, there's some ugly implications in that. Think what a true sadist could do if they didn't need to worry about permently killing their house-elf?) > >>Carol: > If you mean that Regulus "forced him to kill himself," Regulus > didn't know why Voldemort needed a House-Elf and naively > volunteered Kreacher for the "honor." Betsy Hp: Which is why this "good owner" argument is so much crap. Humans aren't gods (not even the wizard version) and an order thought to be good could turn into something horrible before the "good owner" even realizes what they've done. With the house-elves compelled to obey, they are completely dependent on their owners thinking out every angle of each order. Which is, I think, an impossibility. > >>Betsy: > > It's a horror, imo. And to try and back away from it by calling > > it something *other* than slavery seems an attempt to candy-coat > > it. > >>Carol: > The "horror" is the enchantment that makes them punish themselves, > not their service to wizards in and of itself. No one is trying to > "candy-coat" it. we're trying to examine it objectively to determine > its nature and its differences from RL slavery. PLEASE don't > attribute motives to fellow posters that they don't have just > because we disagree with you. Betsy Hp: Like accusing them of ignoring "rational arguments"? Hi, Pot! *eg* Though I still think an attempt to call a sentient being owned and controlled by another sentient being something *other* than slavery is... ah hell, it seems like trying to force something into something it's not. House-elves are slaves, they're called slaves in canon, and trying to find another word seems a bit silly, to my mind. > >>Betsy HP: > > Of course, House-elves *are* different. The parallels aren't > > exact. > >>Carol: > Which is exactly what the rest of us have been arguing. Thank you. Betsy Hp: You're welcome. :) Can we trash the "they're not slaves" argument then, please, and focus on whether slavery is a good thing for house- elves? That seems to be the actual argument. Am I wrong? > >>Betsy Hp: > > Because while JKR wanted us to hate the Malfoys for owning a > > slave, she wanted us to still love slave-owning Harry. > >>Carol: > However, for the sake of argument, if she did "intend" for us to > hate the Malfoys, it was not because they were "slave owners" (or, > more correctly, House-Elf owners). Betsy Hp: No, no "slave" works fine. It's what Dobby uses after all. Let's not get cutsy with it. So wait, we're supposed to like the Malfoys? > >>Carol: > It was because they *abused* their House-Elf. Betsy Hp: Oh. So we should hate Sirius? > >>Carol: > Harry, who inherited a House-Elf against his will, cannot free him > even after the defeat of Voldemort because Kreacher doesn't want to > be freed. (Even Sirius says as much, IIRC.) We are not supposed > to "love slave-owning Harry." We are (assuming that I've guessed > JKR's "intention" correctly) supposed to admire Harry as the savior > of the WW who has come to terms with Kreacher and learned to treat > his House-Elf (not slave) as that House-Elf (not slave) wants to be > treated--and that includes letting him serve "Master Harry" Master > Harry's favorite treacle tarts--or bacon sandwiches. Betsy Hp: But as you've demonstrated upthread, even the best intentions on the part of the *slave* owner can lead to really bad consequences for the *slave*. Unless, are you saying Winky is no longer a house-elf? Dobby died as something other than a house-elf? If a house-elf is no longer owned does he or she cease to be? Kreacher is Harry's property and Harry is cool with that. So he's Harry the slave-owning hero. Betsy Hp From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Sat Jan 26 16:57:58 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:57:58 -0000 Subject: Molly Weasley being off with Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180994 I have a query from GoF which I have just re-read. When Harry is going to the third task he sees Molly Weasley who has come to support him. She is rather cold to Hermione as she has read the article written by Rita S saying the Hermione is Harry's girl friend. What I want to know is why this would bother MW? My theory is that she knew that Ron fancied Hermione and she felt that HG was betraying Ron. I am probably wrong, so any comments. Jayne From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 18:17:51 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:17:51 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 6-11 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180995 > Mike: > Yes! I agree, and always thought that intent is a major part of > magic. We now know that apparition requires a like thought process. > My personal feeling on Dark Magic is that intent counts for alot > there, too. Alla: Oh yeah I am just saying that at least here she indicated that intent counts and for that reason we can at least extrapolate IMO that in other instances it counts as well. I would not mind her specifying in some other places though. > > Alla: > > > > I don't know about anybody else, but I am really impressed with > > Harry's ability to think and put two and two together here. Heee, > > Hermione would be so proud. But anyways, to me it foreshadowed > > that sometimes when he puts himself to it, he could figure out > > stuff, not just act without thinking. :) > > Mike: > I'd forgotten about this clever bit of deductive reasoning. It was a > shame that it abandoned him in OotP when he saw the Sirius vision. At > least he seemed to get it back by DH. Alla: Right, of course it abandoned him and I'd say more that once. I am just saying that this early in the series we see that Harry can think when he applies himself to it and when in DH he starts putting things together finally it is not out of the blue, it is because he applies himself to it and of course because books come to an end, LOL. I am just impressed that she gave us that early the example of Harry thinking before acting. Mike: > I wanted to add that in these chapters we got our first Sorting Hat > song. I noted there was nothing about blood, only cunning mentioned > with regard to Slytherin qualities. Still, it wasn't a very > flattering picture painted of the Slyth's with the "use any means > [t]o achieve their ends". Alla: Blood appears in OOP song, right? Alla > I know it is reference to Qudditch, but I cannot help but remember > that Harry as a secret weapon motive goes through OOP and cannot > help but read this line with it in mind as well. Potioncat: Harry had already been kept secret for nearly 11 years. As well having secrets kept from him. The layers of secrets in this series is astounding. Thanks Alla for this look back at SS/PS! Alla: Secrets on top of the secrets on top of the secrets and on top of the secrets indeed and as Zara mentioned Harry is still a secret weapon in DH. But when I read lines like this I am DYING to be in JKR's head. I so want to know if she wrote this line with double meaning in mind or it simply reads this way to me. Oh, and believe me I am enjoying looking back myself soooo much. Geoff: Interesting, Alla, the different interpretations we can put on something like this. I have always read this as meaning that Harry is 'new' to the school - i.e. a new pupil and nothing more sinister or hidden than that. But I, like Winnie-the-Pooh, am a bear of little brain and far too often take bits in books at face value. I would never make a Holmes or a Columbo.... :-) Alla: LOLOLOL. I am imagining you as Winnnie- the Pooh and laughing so much. But that's how I always read this line as well and now I am just probably imagining things myself. Zanooda: Anyway, I just wanted to say that, even though F&G already had the Map when they were in their third year (Harry's first), it's possible that they didn't figure out how to activate it yet, especially if they stole it at the end of their first year, because the conversation you are referring to happened at the very beginning of their third year. Just one possible explanation :-). Alla: Thanks for reminding me that they got the map in their first year. Mike brought JKR's explanation that they were figuring out different combinations and finally found right one? But oh boy, that some specific mind set needed to come up with those words, heheh. I guess Fred and George are suited for it. Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 19:29:31 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:29:31 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180996 Carol earlier: > > The only kind of "will" that House-Elves seem to have is to serve a master that they think is deserving, which is why Dobby and Kreacher rebel in their respective ways. Dobby wants to be a "Free Elf"--free to serve Harry Potter (and/or work for Dumbledore to earn just enough money to buy socks. He doesn't want too much time off because he "likes work better"). Kreacher, too, likes to work and does it voluntarily once he and his new master come to a mutual understanding. Winky hates her "freedom," and uses it to become a miserable drunkard because she wants to return to her beloved master. > Magpie responded:: > A will to serve a master they think is deserving is a perfectly fine will. It's one they share with plenty of humans. It's a will that they're unable to assert when they're owned by somebody else. Carol again: But you concede that they *want to serve Wizards*, right? And I *don't* think that "plenty of humans," Muggle or Wizard, share that will. (Most of us work because we have to earn money, and, yes, we prefer a reasonable and kind employer, but that's not the same thing as *wanting to serve a Wizard master,* preferably one who doesn't abuse them, which is the only thing that House-Elves want. A vacation home in Majorca? Lots of chocolate for me to eat? A trip to the zoo? I don't see any House-Elf expressing any desire except to 1) escape the cruel treatment of the Malfoys or 2) serve the Wizard of their choice or 3) in the case of odd-ball Dobby, buy socks. They aren't human. they don't think like humans. They aren't caught up in our selfish desires for entertainment, material goods, and personal satisfaction. We don't even see a House-Elf pining for a loved one *other than* a human master. > Magpie: > Dobby and Kreacher both want freedom when they don't want to serve their masters-- Carol: Kreacher wants freedom? Canon, please? I seem to recall Sirius Black saying in OoP that Kreacher would be distraught if he were offered freedom (not to mention that it would be dangerous to give it to him at that point). And we saw what "freedom" did to WinkY/ What makes you think that Kreacher, deprived of his home in 12 GP and the portrait of his old mistress, would be any less disturbed? He doesn't want freedom. He just wants the renegade "criminal" Sirius Black to dry up and blow away. He was perfectly happy serving Sirius's parents and brother, and, once Harry shows respect for Master Regulus, he's perfectly happy to serve him and *voluntarily* cleans himself and starts acting like a Hogwarts House-Elf. He now has what they have: decent working conditions and a master he can respect who won't abuse him, psychologically or otherwise. He's not the least bit concerned about being owned, any more than the Hogwarts House-Elves are. He belongs to 12 GP exactly as they belong to Hogwarts. And they like it that way. Magpie: These other things like the right to vote or open a business or start an eel farm aren't freedom. Carol: They're not? I thought that living in a free country meant the right to vote and the right to seek (but not necessarily find) the employment of our choice, the right to start a business, etc. Funny thing: House-Elves don't want any of those *human* rights. They only want to serve Wizards, preferably Wizards they respect who won't abuse them. I guess you're saying that the Wizards who open business, say, the Weasley Twinsd, or start an eel farm like the witch in GoF aren't free? (She was also free to bet her eel farm on a weel-long match, poor thing!) Magpie: Sure they don't want to be abused either--neither do most free people. Carol: No one, not Wizards and Witches, not Muggles, not House-Elves, not Mrs. Norris, not even Scabbers or Trevor, wants to be abused. Nor is anyone arguing that they do. Magpie: But Dobby even *uses* the word free to describe what he wants. Carol: "Even Dobby"? I would say *only* Dobby, the oddball House-Elf. However, if the Malfoys had not abused him, chances are, he'd be as happy to serve as any other House-Elf, including Winky and the reformed Kreacher, whose reformation is, BTW, entirely voluntary. Magpie: > It's so important to him that Harry puts it on his tombstone. It changes the way he's viewed by every character. How is it not freedom because he's a free person who likes to work and that his work consists in large part of domestic chores? Carol: What changes the way Dobby is viewed is his eccentric disposition and views. Nevertheless, except for his unusual opinions, which the other Elves don't want to hear, and his extremely odd clothes, he is no different from any other House-Elf. He serves Wizards (Harry, Dumbledore, and, apparently, Aberforth). He cleans the Gryffindor common room when no one else will. He does the same work for Harry that Kreacher does, tracking Draco Malfoy, and does it better. The "slave" Kreacher chooses to provide only useless information, sabotaging his human master, just as he sabotaged Sirius in OoP. He *stops* sabotaging Harry and serves him willingly in DH. His status has not changed. He is still owned. But he now respects Harry and serves him as willingly as the "free" Dobby does and as willingly as Winky served the master she wants to return to. ("Freedom" robbed Winky of happiness and a purpose in life.) "How is it not freedom because he's a free person"? Now there's a circular definition for you! If you mean, how is Dobby not free, I would say that he's free by Elf standards, having been accidentally given clothes by his owner thanks to Harry's trick, but he still serves Wizards, and he still punishes himself when he disobeys his new employer, Delores Umbridge. Contrast what a freed human slave would do, given the chance--and assuming that he had the education to do something other than scrub floors or work in a kitchen (no offense intended to cooks and manual laborers). Take an educated Greek slave in ancient Rome, for example. He'd find the best job he could, make money, buy a house, get married and start a family--the things that humans do. "Free" Dobby doesn't make such choices, either because they don't interest him or because they're not available to him. Do you think that freed House-Elves, sent to a school like Hogwarts to learn to be human, would change their nature? I don't, nor do I think that such an education should be imposed upon them. They have their own magic, they don't use wands, and such an education would either be wholly useless or would impose Wizard values and the Wizarding way of life on creatures who have a different psychology and culture from humans. *They don't want to be human.* They don't need or want to be "free." They only want freedom from abuse, not freedom from ownership. Most of them want to be part of the same family or household (counting Hogwarts as a household) as their ancestors (cf, kreacher and Winky). The "free Elf" Dobby is an anamoly. No other House-Elf wants what Dobby wants (and gets). Imagine Kreacher or Winky or any other House-Elf running around in odd socks and a tea cozy. It wouldn't happen. (Winky shows what she thinks of her cute little outfit by allowing it to become burned and stained.) Note that Kreacher makes the *choice* to clean himself up, serve HRH real food (where he got it, I still don't know) and magically scrub the pots and pans. Again, his status as a House-Elf owned by Harry has not changed, but his attitude and behavior have come full circle because he respects his master. House-Elves like to work; they like to serve Wizards and Witches (but not Muggles or Goblins or other House-Elves). All that's required to make them happy is a master who understands what House-Elves want. > Carol earlier: > > All a House-Elf wants (and that includes the so-called Free Elf, Dobby) is a Wizard master or mistress that he can respect and who treats him well. *Why not listen to the House-Elves* and believe what > they say (or what their actions show)? > Magpie: > I don't see how you're believing them when Dobby has asked for freedom and you're claiming that what he really wants to be is a slave. Carol: *Please* don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that he wants to be a slave. That's your word. I said that *he wants to serve Wizards*, as canon aptly demonstrates. To repeat, Dobby serves Dumbledore for what we would call "slave wages" (he's talked him down from more money and more time off--"Dobby likes work better") and he voluntarily serves Harry. (He's also in as much danger from disobeying Umbridge as a Hogwarts-owned Elf would be if it occurred to them to thwart her). Again, why not believe not only Dobby, who likes work an chooses to serve Wizards, but all the other House-Elves, including Winky, Kreacher, and the Hogwarts House-Elves? As for the other House-Elves, they are perfectly happy being owned. Even Kreacher doesn't give a fig in Hades about being owned. He's happy to serve Wizards that he respects, the Black family other than Sirius or the reformed Harry (for lack of a better word--Harry's changed views and behavior precede Kreacher's change of heart and voluntary resumption of his House-Elf duties. In fact, I'm sure we're seeing Kreacher as he was before Voldemort poisoned him.) With Dobby, at least, he does say that he wants freedom. Secondly the right to serve a master or mistress that you can respect requires that you be able to choose your master, which they can't do as long as they're slaves. Carol: No, it doesn't Kreacher doesn't choose Harry. He learns to respect him when Harry learns to understand and respect him. Kreacher is still owned, and not by a master he's chosen. What's required, perhaps, is a course at Hogwarts in House-Elf psychology and some lawas against House-Elf abuse. What's not required is "freeing" the House-Elves (which can only be done, so far as we know, by giving them clothes), which would only upset them. Let them live in the houses they belong to and serve Wizards, which is all that they know how to do or want to do, even if they're "free" (as shown by both Dobby and Winky). If possible, find a way to lift the enchantment that makes them punish themselves. As for choosing their masters, how do you propose that they should do that? I doubt that most House-Elves (Hogwarts Elves, Winky, Hokey, the reformed Kreacher) want a different master, but if they do, are they supposed to wander the WW for a year as Dobby did before they find someone who will hire them for pay? Much better to leave things as they are, eliminating only the abuse and the self-punishment enchantment. Listen to the House-Elves. They don't want to be "free." They don't want clothes. They don't want money. They don't want vacations. They are not us. they are magical creatures whose nature is to serve Wizards and who like it that way, thank you very much. Carol, who prefers to use the term "House-Elf ownership" rather than "House-Elf slavery," which may resemble human slavery in some respects but is by no means equivalent, magic and the nature of House-Elves making a significant difference From aletamosquito at gmail.com Sat Jan 26 19:31:28 2008 From: aletamosquito at gmail.com (Aleta Turner) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:31:28 -0500 Subject: Molly Weasley being off with Hermione In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3591e0870801261131n619d85a4p25309d1ea5c3d4e7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 180997 On 1/26/08, Jayne wrote: > I have a query from GoF which I have just re-read. > When Harry is going to the third task he sees Molly Weasley who has > come to support him. She is rather cold to Hermione as she has read > the article written by Rita S saying the Hermione is Harry's girl > friend. > What I want to know is why this would bother MW? > > My theory is that she knew that Ron fancied Hermione and she felt that > HG was betraying Ron. I am probably wrong, so any comments. > > Jayne Aleta: I don't think it's anything to do with Ron. I think it's because of the other aspect of what Rita has to say about Hermione - that she's going out with Victor Krum. Molly believes Hermione is two-timing Harry, and that makes her angry because Molly loves Harry and doesn't want him hurt. Of course, we know that Harry and Hermione have never dated, and Harry has no problem with Hermy & Victor's relationship, but that's Molly believes Skeeter's tripe. Aleta From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 21:22:36 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:22:36 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180998 Carol earlier: > > > > The only kind of "will" that House-Elves seem to have is to serve a master that they think is deserving, which is why Dobby and Kreacher rebel in their respective ways. Dobby wants to be a "Free Elf"--free> to serve Harry Potter > > a_svirn: > If it were true, why didn't he offer his services to Harry? He spent an entire year applying for various jobs and never once approached Harry. Besides, he wanted to be employed, not to be owned by a congenial master. Carol responds: Even if it had occurred to him to do that, what do you think that Harry would have said, considering that Dobby had nearly killed him with his Bludger and gotten him in serious trouble with the pudding and the blocked entrance to Platform 9 3/4? I suppose that Dobby thought that "freedom" meant being paid. What it also meant was a year of suffering as he searched for paid employment. But, pay or no pay, he's till serving Wizards. That's what a House-Elf does. And he *did* offer his services to Harry at the first opportunity (the gilly weed solution). And he does it again in all the later books, voluntarily serving Harry without pay, but nevertheless serving him because that's what House-Elves do. And no other House-Elf wants to be paid or "employed." See my response to Magpie in the previous post. > Carol earlier: > (and/or work for Dumbledore to earn just enough money to buy socks. He doesn't want too much time off because he "likes work better"). > > a_svirn: > So what if he is? Is it a justification for putting him under magical and legal constraints? Carol responds: You know, I'm really getting tired of having words put into my mouth and ideas put into my mind. No, it's not a justification for putting him under magical and legal constraint. I never said that it was. Exactly which legal restraints you're referring to, I don't know, but the magical constraints are pre-existing. No one is "putting him under" them. He can't escape them even as a "Free Elf." He still punishes himself when he disobeys Umbridge. To make my point clearer, since you seem to have misunderstood it, I am merely saying that Dobby is a typical House-Elf in one respect--his love of work, specifically the desire to serve Wizards, which is more important to him than money and time off, both of which are apparently so scary to him that he "talked Dumbledore down" from his initial offer. > Carol earlier: > Kreacher, too, likes to work and does it voluntarily once he and his new master come to a mutual understanding. > a_svirn: > I still don't get how liking to work and even wanting to serve translates into wanting to be someone's property. Much less anyone's property. Carol again: House-Elves like to serve Wizards. Except for Dobby, they don't care that they're owned. Again, see my response to Magpie as I don't want to repeat myself. Can you show me an Elf, even Dobby, who objects specifically to being someone's property? What Dobby objects to is being the property of a family of "bad Dark wizards" who abuse them. Had Dobby been a Hogwarts House-Elf, I doubt that he would have developed his unique desire to be a "Free Elf." Carol earlier: > > Winky hates her "freedom," and uses it to become a miserable drunkard> because she wants to return to her beloved master. > > a_svirn: > Winky hates herself. She failed her beloved master and the whole family was endangered because of it. And came to an ignominious end. Carol: Canon, please? Where does Winky say any such thing? All she wants is to return to her beloved master who is "needing his Winky." She considers herself disgraced because she received clothes, not because she endangered the family (she certainly doesn't know that Barty Jr. is going to murder his father and end up soul-sucked, nor can she be blamed for unintended consequences of her actions any more than Harry can be blamed because Wormtail resurrected Voldemort). > Carol: > > Where do we see a single House-Elf who wants what human beings call freedom? > > a_svirn: > And what do humans normally call freedom? Exemption from slavery? Carol again: I've defined freedom upthread. It's what you and I have in our daily lives. As for "exemption from slavery," you're begging the question. Again. a_Svirn: > Dobby certainly wanted that [exemption from slavery]. Carol: No, he didn't. He wanted to escape from the abusive Malfoys, and who can blame him? Once he's "freed," he has to fend for himself, seeking paid employment. But there's no indication that he "wanted paying" before Harry tricked Lucius into giving Dobby the sock, nor did Harry have any idea that his kind gesture would send Dobby into a year of homelessness and unemployment. No other House-Elf wants exemption from what you're calling "slavery," period. a_svirn: > Liberation from an arbitrary and autocratic control? Both Dobby and Kreacher wanted that. Carol: Sorry. I'm not following you. Dobby wanted freedom from *abuse.* Kreacher wanted a master who understood and respected Black family values (or, at least, understood and respected Regulus Black and wanted to help carry out Regulus' last order, to destroy the locket). The only "arbitrary and autocratic control" is the enchantment that forces House-Elves to punish themselves, and that's outside the control of Wizards as well as House-Elves (at least in the books as we have them). a_svirn: > Liberty of action? Again Dobby and Kreacher wanted that. Carol: Did they? If you mean that they wanted to escape the enchantment that made them punish themselves if they disobeyed their masters, no doubt they did. Unfortunately, being "freed" (which Kreacher doesn't want) doesn't break that enchantment. And they certainly acted as they chose to in spite of it. Or rather, Kreacher *didn't* act except to visit Narcissa Malfoy and happily obey *her*. He never cleaned or cooked for Sirius but voluntarily resumed those duties for Harry. And he followed Draco, having no choice in the matter because of the enchantment, but chose to report only unimportant and obvious details, at the same time making his preference for Draco over Harry clear. And no doubt Harry would have happily transferred ownership of Kreacher to Draco if Kreacher hadn't been so dangerous. a_svirn: > Freedom of choice? Here we go again: Dobby and Kreacher wanted that. Carol: Here we go again, indeed. What "freedom of choice" are you talking about? Freedom to choose which Wizard to serve? Certainly not freedom from service to Wizards. I say again that Dobby wanted freedom from abuse and Kreacher wanted to serve a master that he respected. And I have already cited canon to back me up. Can you support your generalizations with canon rather than taking your points for granted, please? a_svirn: > Winky did not wanted all those things perhaps. Carol: Perhaps? a_svirn: > But then she though herself a privileged servant entrusted as she was with an important mission and dangerous secrets. She cherished her privilege and grieved when she lost it. Carol: Exactly. The last thing she wanted was to be "freed," deprived of that privileged position. a_svirn: > But, then, you know, the same is true for real live slavery. Those slaves who have privileged positions hold onto them. Carol: But we're not talking about real slaves. We're talking about House-Elves. And of all the Elves in canon, only one wanted to be "free," and the other "free" Elf, Winky, was miserable. > > > Carol: > Do they want to vote? > > a_svirn: > Goodness, you almost sound like Hermione. And how do you know that they don't want to vote? Then again, do I wonder, wizards want to vote? It doesn't look like they have general elections. Carol: Me sound like Hermione? Heaven forfend? I'm saying that they *don't* want to vote. That's a human right or privilege (and an annoying one, IMO, since we have to listen to boring campaign speeches and make an informed decision and all that). Acually, I'm defining "freedom" and saying that it isn't what House-Elves want. And while Wizards don't have general elections, they do get involved in politics. (I can imagine Dobby as a member of a committee on the rights of nonhuman creatures, but I can't see House-Elves in general having any interest in the matter.) > Carol earlier: > > All a House-Elf wants (and that includes the so-called Free Elf, Dobby) is a Wizard master or mistress that he can respect and who treats him well. *Why not listen to the House-Elves* and believe what they say (or what their actions show)? > > a_svirn: > Yes, why not. Kreacher cried "I won't! I won't", and as Dumbledore said, pointing out the obvious, he objected very much to pass into Harry's ownership. Carol: Until Harry changed *his* perception of both Kreacher and Kreacher's hero, Regulus Black. And Harry is as reluctant to own Kreacher as Kreacher is to be owned by him until they come to a mutual understanding. Kreacher is not only no longer crying, "I won't!" he's willingly serving Harry (and even giving a respectful nod to Muggle-born Hermione). BTW, I am not denying that House-Elves are owned, only that they are slaves in the human sense. Kreacher does not object to being owned per se; he objects to being owned by HBP!Harry. (DH!Harry is another matter altogether.) a_svirn: As for Dobby, he wanted an employer, not master. He was careful to make this distinction. Carol: Does he really make that distinction? Canon, please? He "wanted paying," but not too much, but he still wants to work and serve Wizards. And he's overwhelmed by DD's generosity in saying that Dobby ccould call him a "barmy old codger" if he likes, but a kind master might make the same sort of allowance. Mostly, Dobby, that eccentric little creature, wants to worship Harry Potter and serve him whether Harry wants his service or not (CoS), wants to wear socks and hats, and wants, like all House-Elves, to be treated well. His eyes fill with tears when "Wheezy" gives him socks and a sweater, for example. He's overwhelmed by "Sir's" small act of kindness. a_svirn: > Moreover even if he had wanted a kind master it would not have made him a slave. Carol: Sorry? I don't follow your logic. After all, I'm arguing that House-Elf ownership *isn't* slavery, so naturally I agree with this assertion. What I'm saying, to make it clear, is that Dobby's status, unlike his appearance and the attitude toward him of his fellow Elves, is not greatly changed when he works for Dumbledore. Nor have his duties changed. He's serving two Wizard masters, one for pay and one because he wants to do whatever he can for his hero. He has a good job, just like the regular Hogwarts House-Elves. He cleans the common room that they refuse to clean because, unlike him, they don't want to be free and consider Hermione's gesture an insult. The only difference, aside from having a few knuts to buy socks, is that he now has a master who treats him well (until Umbridge comes along). But if you're saying that what Dobby wanted was a kind Wizard to serve, master or employer, call him what you will, then I agree. But how that could make him a slave escapes me. a_svirn: > I can wait on you, cook for you and clean for you, and even grovel before you, but all this would not make me your slave as long as I am free to disobey and to walk away from you whenever I choose. Carol: Wait on me? Cook and clean for me? Yes, please! Grovel? No thank you. Seriously, we're not talking about human slaves here. We're talking about House-Elves, who are bound by magical enchantment to serve one house or one family unless given clothes, which (unless they're Dobby), they don't want, and bound by a separate enchantment (one that does need to be lifted if possible) to punish themselves if they disobey their masters (and that includes "employers," as we see with Dobby and Umbridge). So, I repeat. House-Elves in general are perfectly happy to be owned and to serve Wizards. We never see them doing or wanting to do anything else. Dobby wanted to escape the abusive Malfoys; the only way to do so was to receive "clothes." What was regarded as a disgrace by most House-Elves was Dobby's salvation. Nevertheless, he immediately sought work serving a Wizarding family or institution because he could not escape his nature. House-Elves like work, specifically housework (they are *House"-Elves, after all), and they work only for Wizards. Nor can he escape the self-punishment enchantment altogether. Abuse is not slavery. Harry was abused, but he was not a slave. Nor is ownership necessarily abuse. The Hogwarts Elves are owned, but except for Slughorn's using a House-Elf to test for poison, they are not abused. House-Elves want to serve Wizards. They do not mind being owned. In fact, they regard being "freed" as being fired. They like to work and most don't want to be paid or wear clothes or have time off (except to sleep). A freed human slave in the eighteenth or nineteenth would take on the responsibilities of a free (human) citizen as best he could: finding employment so that he can make money to pay his rent or buy a house, paying taxes, voting, obeying the law, getting married, raising a family. He also, if he had any money left over, would spend it on material goods or travel or education. Those are human needs and desires. They are what we call freedom. House-Elves, as far as I can see, have no desire for freedom. All they want is to serve a Witch or Wizard, be treated well, and perhaps be complimented for their "good service." Carol, who thinks that House-Elf ownership is a fact of life in the WW and that only the abuse of the system (and the House-Elves), not the system itself, needs to be eliminated From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 21:40:55 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:40:55 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 6-11 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 180999 zanooda wrote: > > The Twins stole the Map from Filch when they were in their first year (PoA, p.191), so they definitely had it at this point. However, we don't know how much time it took them to learn how to "work it". They certainly had to experiment a lot with the Map to find out how to activate it. > > As a matter of fact, I don't understand how it is possible to "guess" the right words ("I solemnly swear ... etc.) that activate the Map. Maybe the Twins managed to establish some kind of contact with the Map (like Snape in PoA) and it gave them a hint :-)? Carol responds: I think that the map can sense a kindred spirit or an enemy. It insulted Snape, viewing him as the despised "Snivellus" of their Hogwarts years, and it aided Harry, showing him how to get inside the Humpbacked Witch statue (it showed the little figure labeled "Harry Potter" tapping the statue with his wand and a tiny speech bubble over his head that said "Dissendium"). I'm guessing that the map, labeled as "an aid to magical mischief makers," was designed so that teachers and other "enemies" (Slytherins? Prefects?) couldn't work it, but students like the Weasley Twins, who were indeed "up to no good," could figure out how to work it. They probably tried various spells and phrases that made their intentions clear and were close enough to the right wording for the map to drop them a little hint. (Maybe it even asked them their names and their House and what they were up to.) Of course, it wasn't as sophisticated as Tom Riddle's diary in that respect, but I think it interacted with the user to some degree as the Marauders themselves would have done, with their personalities, much as the portrait of Phineas Nigellus retains his personality. Carol, perhaps giving the Marauders too much credit and the cleverness and persistence of the Weasley Twins too little From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 26 21:50:51 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:50:51 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181000 Pippin: Replying to an earlier post of Betsy's -- I have a fresh point to make so be patient with me... > Betsy Hp: > I've never liked that aspect of the prime directive *g*: to see > behavior that I deem as not good behavior, but I'll just let it go > because who am I to judge? Pippin: I agree with Magpie, it's not really a prime directive situation. Nobody is trying to preserve the house-elf culture in a pristine state. Betsy_Hp: I do agree with the idea that I can't > just swoop in with my superior armies and completely remake a > society. But I do feel I can judge or apply my own personal values. > What use are my values unless I actually use them? (For a RL > example: I think female circumcision is an abominable practise that > speaks very ill of those societies that allow or encourage the > practice. It's not my society, but I feel quite free, and in fact > almost duty bound, to judge such behavior.) Pippin: But then what? What good is your judgment unless you try to put it into action? Methods that might recommend themselves in our culture, such as protest movements and reconstructive surgery, won't be effective if those you want to help aren't receptive to them. Hermione tries to launch a protest movement, but she is stymied. Protest movements run on shame and the wizards don't see any reason to feel ashamed of what they're doing. As Hagrid sees it, loyal elves are happy and well-provided for, only oddballs like Dobby have a hard time. Harry doesn't buy into Hermione's rhetoric but neither does he argue against it the way Ron does, at least until Kreacher betrays him in OOP. But Harry's judgement reverses when he discovers the fate of Hokey, a loyal elf who is nonetheless abused by the ministry. It's then that he starts to see some point in SPEW. It really comes home to both him and Ron when they see how Kreacher's loyalty was abused by Voldemort. Hermione is able to win them over by showing that house-elf slavery violates the norms that they already accept, not the norms she thinks they should accept. > > Betsy Hp: > Right, those are arguments *not* being used. > > >>Pippin: > > Nor was the idea that slaves are not human ever widespread in our > > culture, much less considered manifestly obvious to everybody. > > Betsy Hp: > Oh, sure it was. Eugenics was all about it. Pippin: If we're talking about the US, the eugenics movement didn't get off the ground until slavery had ended, and it reached its heyday in the 1920's and 30's. Contemporary defenders of slavery were more likely to cite economics or theology as the grounds for their beliefs, IMO. But no one in canon uses such arguments. Differences like these are what make me think that the inclusion of slavery in the books is not intended to make us take a fresh look at real-world slavery. Furthermore the psychology of house-elves is different in one very radical way that no one has touched on yet. The human slave owner may be suspected of falsely claiming that his slaves are happy, since as we all know, and Harry proves through numerous detentions, humans can work both hard and well at jobs they hate. But no house-elf seems capable of this. Kreacher can be forced to spy on Draco, but cannot be made to deliver useful information. Since he's obeyed his instructions to the letter he doesn't even need to punish himself. The same conditions applied at Grimmauld Place, where Kreacher's "cleaning" didn't accomplish anything. When it comes to work-to-rule job actions, Kreacher's an expert. The Hogwarts Elves function the same way. When they're unhappy, they don't perform, whether it's refusing to clean Gryffindor Tower or pushing the Trio out of the kitchens. Winky is the same, incapacitating herself with alcohol. House-elves will do the most noisome taks, even drink poison, for a master they respect. But unlike humans, it doesn't seem you can get work out of them if they're unhappy. IMO, that's why Hagrid can state flatly that the house-elves are happy -- he knows if they weren't happy they wouldn't work. Nor can House-elves conceal their emotions even when it would be in their interest to do so. Kreacher laughs as he tells Dumbledore where Sirius has gone, giving himself away against his own interests. So it would seem that except in those not-rare-enough instances where a house-elf owner would rather have a punching-bag than a useful servant, house-elf owners have an incentive to treat their property well *from the house-elves' perspective* that owners of humans don't have. And elves who are treated as they wish to be do receive a form of compensation, since they can and do withhold their labors if they are treated otherwise. > > Betsy Hp: > To anyone familiar with scifi, this is exactly what will eventually > happen. Worms *always* turn. (The current Battlestar Galactica > deals with exactly this issue.) It's why, despite Harry's assurance > that all is well, I expect the WW will rupture into destructive > violence sooner rather than later. Pippin: If the purpose of the house-elf plot arc is to inform us about the difference between naive do-goodery and enlightened activism, it can end once our heroes understand. I'm quite familiar with sci-fi, thank you very much. But since Harry and Hermione know as well as anyone that worms always turn, why assume that they aren't doing their best to treat house-elves as house-elves want to be treated? That all is well with the WW, as with the Hogwarts Express, not because it has arrived at its destination but because reasonable progress is being made? Pippin From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Sat Jan 26 18:46:14 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:46:14 -0000 Subject: Sirius as a dog Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181001 I have another query. In GoF at the end we see Sirius reveal himself to Molly and Snape from a dog to himself. Snape seemed surprised. Did he not know before what Sirius was. I thought he knew at the end of Po A when Sirius tansformed to fight Lupin who was a werewolf at this time. Jayne From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 22:32:13 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:32:13 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181002 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tiger_queen429" wrote: > Harry Potter is set in what I can best describe as an > idealized version of the United States in the 1950's. Goddlefrood: Other than that it's not set in the US at all, it's probably closer to the 1690s in England, despite Hogwarts being in Scotland. And women are not treated badly at all, as ironchef expanded on better than this old knight errant could. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 22:32:34 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:32:34 -0000 Subject: Sirius as a dog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181003 > Jayne: > In GoF at the end we see Sirius reveal himself to Molly and Snape > from a dog to himself. Snape seemed surprised. Did he not know > before what Sirius was. I thought he knew at the end of Po A when > Sirius tansformed to fight Lupin who was a werewolf at this time. zgirnius: Hi Jayne! You must have watched the PoA movie along with reading the book. In the movie, Snape is conscious and present when Lupin transforms. In the book, he is unconscious after being hit by the Trio's Stunning spells. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 23:02:15 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:02:15 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181004 > > a_svirn: > > It can't be their *natural* anything because slavery is a > > *social* institution, not natural element. They may be naturally > > predisposed to serve wizards, yes, but that does not what make > > them slaves. > > > Mike: > Wait, let me get this straight! I've said that house elf slavery is > different and the main reason was because of that whatever magical > thing that forces them to serve wizards. You've insisted that it > must still be called slavery and I've acquiesced to your term. Now, > because I've allowed your term, you want to negate my "natural state" > argument, because ownership and property are man-made concepts that > pertain to "slavery". So, I guess I'm being forced back to my > original position that It's. Not. Slavery.!! I'm not sure how that > got us anywhere. > a_svirn: I didn't say concepts. Had I said that you would have been right to take me to task. I said institutions. The established order of things in the Wizarding Society. Wizards many centuries ago (don't know exactly when, but at some point obviously) decided that they don't mind owning elves. If they had minded they would not have accommodated elvish natural urges to serve. (I hope we agree on that one? You don't think that they hate the very idea of owning slaves, but do so because they are magically compelled?) To that end they adjusted their laws ? they made it legal to own elves. We don't know whether it is legal to trade them (though I don't see why not), but we know it is legal to bequeath them. We also know that in the WW laws are enforced by magic. > Mike: > I will say that my concept of house elves'origins was explained very > nicely by Goddlefrood in his post #180948, up thread. I think the > compunction to serve humans was there in the beginning, nobody had to > enchant them, they were enchanted that way from their first breath. a_svirn: Really? The enchantment involves human cloths. There is nothing organic about them, surely? The clothes cannot be a part of the organic make-up? Unless wizards come into this world wearing socks. I am sure Rowling never mentioned this quaint little detail. Also, the bond goes both ways. For me to be your slave, you have to be my owner. If the bond is "organic" it is as organic for you as it is for me. I must say I find the idea of natural owners every bit as disgusting as that of natural slaves, but I also don't see how it can be the case ? after all, most wizards make do without elves and they don't pine away and drown themselves in a butt of butterbeer. > Mike: > *If* they were originally tied to the land, like hobs or brownies, > wizards changed that and tied them to wizarding families, which they > were probably serving exclusively anyway. a_svirn: There is no reason whatsoever to think that they were tied to the land. No were hobs or brownies tied to it for that matter. For one thing they weren't interested in the land at all ? they were *household* spirits (or creatures), for another ? and that is very important ? THEY WERE NOT BOUND. They exchanged their services for certain payments or rewards. Or they made themselves nuisances, and had to be rid off. But they were never bound. > mike: > My canon? Every elf, including the freed Dobby has the compunction to > serve wizards. a_svirn: I don't dispute that. But I can have the compunction to serve you without being your slave. Because a) it is illegal to hold slaves in our world (though it is possible, I suppose, to hold them illegally), and b) as long as I am free to disobey and to walk away I am free period. It is only if you put me under legal and/or other external constraints I turn into a slave. > mike: he could not serve Harry at #4 Privet Dr. a_svirn: Yes, he could. They can be very unobtrusive. > mike: He > could and did serve Harry as well as Hogwarts after he signed on at > Hogwarts. SERVED Harry, without pay). a_svirn: So what? Harry didn't own him, did he? If Dobby wanted to serve Harry, he could serve Harry. If he wanted to serve Abertforth he could serve Aberforth. He could do as he chose. Because he was free-e. > mike: > House elves are magically compelled to serve wizards. That doesn't > make them property, a_svirn: Yes it does. Wizards own them because they are magically compelled to be owned. It was spelled out in HBP, when Kreacher didn't want to pass into Harry's ownership, but was nevertheless compelled to do just that. > mike: that defines their existence. a_svirn: Yes, being someone else's property rather tends to define one's existence. > mike: When Sirius died, > Kreacher had no Black left to serve, so his service reverted to the > house, #12 GP. a_svirn: What do you mean by "reverted"? It was willed by Sirius. If the Black estate had "reverted" to anyone it would have been Bellatrix. > mike: When Harry inherited the house, he became Kreacher's > master. "You see, ... if you have indeed inherited the house, you > have also inherited --" [Kreacher] Wizarding law gave > Harry the house, house elf enchantment made Harry Kreacher's master > by virtue of his succession to the Black legacy, the house of a house > elf. a_svirn: Precisely my point. Wizarding law gave Kreacher to Harry. Thank you for providing the quotation. As for the idea that elves are bound to houses -- canon seems to contradict it. Kreacher is bound to Harry, Winky was bound to Crouch and Dobby was bound to Lucius. Harry sent Kreacher to live at Hogwarts and Kreacher lived at Hogwarts. If Harry told him to live on the Whooping Willow he would live there. The idea of being bound to some property is that you live on that same property and make use of it. That's what serfdom is about. You can't leave it ? because you are bound to it ? but you live on it and use it. > > > > Mike: > > > Now you seem to be saying that it's *canon* that they are > > > enslaved by wizard *law*. Are you saying there is canon that > > > says that house elves are slaves by virtue of legal constraints? > > > Could you give me the canon that you're referencing? > > > > a_svirn? > > ?!! The fact that Sirius can bequeath Kreacher? Obviously by > > wizarding law it is a legal procedure. Obviously it is legal > > to own house-elves. > > Mike: > I didn't ask that. I left my original question up there. I wanted to > know where in canon it said that house elves became slaves through a > wizarding law. Not that it's legal, I know it's legal. a_svirn: Then what are you trying to ask? If it is legal for wizards to own elves, then they own them through the wizarding law. > Mike: > But never mind. I'm sure I know canon as well as anyone (except Carol > and Zanooda), and I know there is no point in canon where it says > elves were free until wizards passed some law that made them slaves. a_svirn: You mean that the law that regulates owning slaves is also *natural*? Part of the organic make-up of the WW? a_svirn From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 26 23:38:12 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:38:12 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 6-11 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181005 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > For myself, I like to think that the twins figured it out in their > first year. But I wouldn't put it past them to have discovered > several of the secret passages before that. When they say "in our > first week", do you think they meant their first week of school? > Cuz that's what I thought they were saying. zanooda: Oh, I don't know about Alla :-), but I personally thought they meant "the first week of this (third) school year". If "our first week" can mean "the first week of school in our first year", then there is no problem at all - the twins could do it all in their first year (finding some passages by themselves, then steeling the map, then making it work). > Mike wrote: > I wanted to add that in these chapters we got our first Sorting Hat > song. zanooda: That reminds me: when I read this chapter, I could never understand how Ron could *not* know about the Sorting Hat and the Sorting ceremony. Come on! This is so unrealistic! The boy is from an old wizarding family, where everyone went to Hogwarts, and he has no idea how the new students are Sorted? I can believe that the Twins wouldn't tell him (just to mess with him :-), but Percy certainly *would* tell, and so would (and should) Molly and Arthur. I understand that JKR wanted Harry (and us :-) to be surprised, but couldn't Harry just *not* ask Ron about the Sorting, so that Ron didn't have to give such a strange answer :-)? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jan 26 23:44:12 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:44:12 -0000 Subject: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181006 > Carol again: > But you concede that they *want to serve Wizards*, right? And I > *don't* think that "plenty of humans," Muggle or Wizard, share that > will. (Most of us work because we have to earn money, and, yes, we > prefer a reasonable and kind employer, but that's not the same thing > as *wanting to serve a Wizard master,* preferably one who doesn't > abuse them, which is the only thing that House-Elves want. A vacation > home in Majorca? Lots of chocolate for me to eat? A trip to the zoo? I > don't see any House-Elf expressing any desire except to 1) escape the > cruel treatment of the Malfoys or 2) serve the Wizard of their choice > or 3) in the case of odd-ball Dobby, buy socks. They aren't human. > they don't think like humans. They aren't caught up in our selfish > desires for entertainment, material goods, and personal satisfaction. > We don't even see a House-Elf pining for a loved one *other than* a > human master. Magpie: Yes, the house elves we've seen all seem to want to do domestic service for Wizards. Lots of humans have a desire to do some kind of job and can take pride in similar work as house elves. Like the butler in Remains of the Day, for instance. I don't understand why you keep pointing to Dobby's wanting to buy socks as being so very different than a human who works to earn money. Lots of people are happier working than being out of a job even without a need for money. This desire is not the same as wanting to be forced to do something you don't want to do. But what humans do is kind of a tangent. Nobody's saying house elves are being badly served by having jobs serving Wizards. Their desire to serve isn't a problem until they're forced to do it against their will--at which point it's no longer a desire to serve. Only they're stuck. That to me is obviously the difference between house elf nature and house elf slavery. Nor does the house elf pining we see meaning anything. Slaves can bond with their masters and love them. > > > Magpie: > > Dobby and Kreacher both want freedom when they don't want to serve > their masters-- > > Carol: > Kreacher wants freedom? Canon, please? Magpie: Kreacher does not want to work for Sirius in OotP or Harry in HBP. He would prefer to work for Bellatrix or Draco. He can't do that because he doesn't have the freedom to choose his own master. Kreacher doesn't call that freedom--house elves from what we see seem to define freedom as being sacked and humiliated, but obviously in both OotP and HBP we see Kreacher having desires for action that are frustrated by his position as a slave. If there was some way a house elf could apply for a different boss to find one he liked, it would be fine--it wouldn't be slavery. He would have some say in whether he stayed or went. Carol: What makes you > think that Kreacher, deprived of his home in 12 GP and the portrait of > his old mistress, would be any less disturbed? Magpie: He's sent to Hogwarts in HBP. They don't ask Kreacher where he'd like to live, and he's got no say in it. (The only reason he still has the portrait of his mistress in 12GP is because it was stuck to the wall and they couldn't throw it out--they tried.) Carol: He doesn't want > freedom. He just wants the renegade "criminal" Sirius Black to dry up > and blow away. He was perfectly happy serving Sirius's parents and > brother, and, once Harry shows respect for Master Regulus, he's > perfectly happy to serve him and *voluntarily* cleans himself and > starts acting like a Hogwarts House-Elf. Magpie: Yes, he was happy serving Sirius' parents and brother. He's happy serving Harry later. But he's *not* happy serving Harry in HBP or Sirius in OotP. House Elves are happy when they're in positions they want for themselves, they're unhappy when trapped in positions they don't want to be in. I don't see how this is an argument for why it's good for them to be slaves like they are now. Carol: He's not the least bit concerned > about being owned, any more than the Hogwarts House-Elves are. Magpie: He expresses concern when he says he doesn't want to serve the master he has. If you were sitting in a room happily reading and I locked you in, you might not notice and be perfectly happy in the room-- until you wanted to leave the room. The fact that somebody likes being in a room is not a good argument imo for it being okay for them to be locked into the room. When your desires go along with the desires of your owner you might mistake it for freedom, but Kreacher can only existing the way he wants when his master lets him. > Magpie: > These other things like the right to vote or open a business or start > an eel farm aren't freedom. > > Carol: > They're not? I thought that living in a free country meant the right > to vote and the right to seek (but not necessarily find) the > employment of our choice, the right to start a business, etc. Magpie: Freedom does not give one the right to vote. That's another right. We don't ever even see Wizards voting, actually. The right to seek employment of their choice is EXACTLY what Kreacher and Dobby suffer for being denied. Kreacher wants to work for Bellatrix but he is forced to work for Sirius. You seem to be saying that if they don't want to open an eel farm they don't want any more freedom than they've got now, and I am disagreeing that those two things are the same thing. House Elves *are* shown suffering from a lack of freedom when they can't choose the person they want to work for. Carol: Funny > thing: House-Elves don't want any of those *human* rights. They only > want to serve Wizards, preferably Wizards they respect who won't abuse > them. Magpie: They are capable of having a preference for which Wizard they serve, but they can't choose to whom they offer their services. I don't see how that's good for house elves. We know they enjoy working for Wizards, but why should this mean they should be trapped in situations they don't like? Why should Wizards be the ones to decide to whom a house elf may or may not offer his services? Carol: I guess you're saying that the Wizards who open business, say, > the Weasley Twinsd, or start an eel farm like the witch in GoF aren't > free? (She was also free to bet her eel farm on a weel-long match, > poor thing!) Magpie: Um, no. I wouldn't say those people aren't free. That's part of this strange road you seem to want to pull me down where you link not being a slave to having a desire to open a business. I can't even follow how you got to the idea that therefore people who start businesses aren't free. > > Magpie: > Sure they don't want to be abused either--neither do most free people. > > Carol: > No one, not Wizards and Witches, not Muggles, not House-Elves, not > Mrs. Norris, not even Scabbers or Trevor, wants to be abused. Nor is > anyone arguing that they do. Magpie: Except in a roundabout way you since you keep trying to divorce house elf slavery from all the things about it that make house elves unhappy--and all the things that give Wizards too much power over this other sentient being. Why must Dobby accept being abused by Lucius? Why must he do things he doesn't want to do for him? Why must he belong to him when he doesn't want to belong to him? Because he can't leave because he's a slave. Once he's free, he's off. > Magpie: > But Dobby even *uses* the word free to describe what he wants. > > Carol: > "Even Dobby"? I would say *only* Dobby, the oddball House-Elf. > However, if the Malfoys had not abused him, chances are, he'd be as > happy to serve as any other House-Elf, including Winky and the > reformed Kreacher, whose reformation is, BTW, entirely voluntary. Magpie: I said "even uses" not "even Dobby." As in "Dobby, who is actually a house elf, describes what he does not have and what he wants as freedom." You seemed to be claiming that Dobby is mistaken in saying that he wants freedom since all he wants to do is buy socks and his life once freed isn't different enough from his life before freedom. > > Magpie: > > It's so important to him that Harry puts it on his tombstone. It > changes the way he's viewed by every character. How is it not freedom > because he's a free person who likes to work and that his work > consists in large part of domestic chores? > > Carol: > What changes the way Dobby is viewed is his eccentric disposition and > views. Nevertheless, except for his unusual opinions, which the other > Elves don't want to hear, and his extremely odd clothes, he is no > different from any other House-Elf. He serves Wizards (Harry, > Dumbledore, and, apparently, Aberforth). Magpie: And that he's now free rather than a slave. He serves Wizards on his own terms. He is no longer a slave, he's a free elft who works in domestic service. Carol: The > "slave" Kreacher chooses to provide only useless information, > sabotaging his human master, just as he sabotaged Sirius in OotP. Magpie: Kreacher didn't want to sabotage himself. He didn't want to do the task at all. He wanted to go straight to Draco and tell him everything, even offer Draco his services. Dobby is acting on his own desires in helping Harry and does a better job. Kreacher is forced to do the job, so tries to find ways of not doing it well. Dobby is the free elf, Kreacher is the slave. Carol: > "How is it not freedom because he's a free person"? Now there's a > circular definition for you! If you mean, how is Dobby not free, I > would say that he's free by Elf standards, having been accidentally > given clothes by his owner thanks to Harry's trick, but he still > serves Wizards, and he still punishes himself when he disobeys his new > employer, Delores Umbridge. Magpie: Dobby is free by human standards as well as elf standards, at least from this human's pov. Carol: > Do you think that freed House-Elves, sent to a school like Hogwarts to > learn to be human, would change their nature? Magpie: Don't know and it's not relevent. An elf doesn't have to go to Hogwarts and study to be MoM to be free any more than he needs to drive an SVU to be free because that's what a lot of Americans like to do. Enjoying being a valet or a dishwasher or a housecleaner is not enjoying being a slave. Nobody said they wanted to be human. They want, canonically, to work for people they want to work for rather than those for which they don't want to work. The inability to do that gets down to their being owned and being slaves, not their liking to do domestic chores for others (nor their not being interested in being paid). Carol: Note that Kreacher makes > the *choice* to clean himself up, serve HRH real food (where he got > it, I still don't know) and magically scrub the pots and pans. Again, > his status as a House-Elf owned by Harry has not changed, but his > attitude and behavior have come full circle because he respects his > master. House-Elves like to work; they like to serve Wizards and > Witches (but not Muggles or Goblins or other House-Elves). All that's > required to make them happy is a master who understands what > House-Elves want. Magpie: But House-Elves don't get to seek masters who understand or care what House-Elves want. That's the slave part. It's certainly nice for Kreacher that the world happened to change around him so that he landed with a Wizard he wanted to serve, but it didn't have to land that way. > > Magpie: > > I don't see how you're believing them when Dobby has asked for > freedom and you're claiming that what he really wants to be is a slave. > > Carol: > *Please* don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that he wants to be > a slave. That's your word. I said that *he wants to serve Wizards*, as > canon aptly demonstrates. Magpie: Yes, but you keep conflating "wanting to serve Wizards" with wanting to be unable to choose not to serve--iow wanting to be a slave--and that just doesn't fly imo. Dobby does not want to serve Lucius Malfoy, Kreacher did not want to serve Sirius. Yet they both had to serve them because they were slaves rather than employees who have the freedom to seek their own employer. A janitor is not a slave. Enjoying being a janitor is not enjoying being a slave. Dobby wanting to serve Wizards does not canonically equal Dobby liking to be forced to serve a Wizard he doesn't want to serve or do things he doesn't want to do. (I don't remember this clearly, but isn't Dobby trying to break himself of the habit of self-abuse after he's freed?) Carol: > Again, why not believe not only Dobby, who likes work an chooses to > serve Wizards, but all the other House-Elves, including Winky, > Kreacher, and the Hogwarts House-Elves? Magpie: I do believe them. I know they're happy while they're owned--and will continue to be unless their situation changes to something where they're unhappy being owned. That's what happened to Kreacher. That's why you can't say they're truly happy with the slavery part. To most House-Elves freedom means disgrace. It means you failed, that your work was sub-par, that you've been sacked. But Kreacher *isn't* happy being forced to work for Sirius any more than Dobby is happy being forced to work for Lucius. For Dobby this leads to an epiphany-- freedom doesn't mean being sacked, it means having a say in whom you serve. Kreacher never sees this, but he is still definitely suffering due to his slavery. It's not the wanting to serve that's a problem, it's where that desire is taken out of the elves' hands so that they're forced to do it. Many elves, because the job itself is enjoyable and their culture understands freedom the way they do, never come to the same understanding as Dobby. Plenty of elves probably never come up against the bars of their own cages because what they want never conflicts with their job. But in those cases when it does, those bars are right there and the Wizards can see them (and take advantage of them) even if the elves don't. Carol: > Listen to the House-Elves. They don't want to be "free." They don't > want clothes. They don't want money. They don't want vacations. Magpie: "Listen to the house elves" as long as they're saying what the right people want to hear. When Kreacher was miserable working for Sirius or Harry, there was no need to listen to his desires and let him choose the master he wanted--Bellatrix, Narcissa or Draco. I'm not dismissing house elf culture. I can see that their whole culture is based around makng freedom a dirty word that only means you've failed as a worker because somebody didn't want you as a slave. But I can still see real ways where this hurts them and doesn't make them happy. It's a hard situation the author's intentionally created, one that's full of excuses for owning house elves being okay. I'm not denying that. But I still think it's slavery. And I don't think this is the way it must be, that there's no way to actually work with house elves on their own terms to come up with a system that's far more truly mutually beneficial. Iow, I still don't see why a natural desire to serve means you should be forced to serve when you don't want to, which elves are. Those that are never in a situation where it takes force are lucky. > a_svirn: > If it were true, why didn't he offer his services to Harry? He spent an entire year applying for various jobs and never once approached Harry. Besides, he wanted to be employed, not to be owned by a congenial master. Carol responds: Even if it had occurred to him to do that, what do you think that Harry would have said, considering that Dobby had nearly killed him with his Bludger and gotten him in serious trouble with the pudding and the blocked entrance to Platform 9 3/4? Magpie: I don't recall anything in canon that indicates that Dobby really wants to be owned by Harry but is afraid to ask because he thinks Harry is angry over the bludger or the pudding or Platform 9 3/4. Dobby was doing that for Harry and Harry knows that. I don't think he's guilty about it now. Dobby spends the last five books of canon saying he's happy about being a free elf who's especially happy to do things for Harry because he made him that free elf. Dobby wanting to do things for Harry and serve him does not translate into Dobby wanting to be forced to serve Harry even if he didn't want to. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 01:15:44 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 01:15:44 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic resolutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181007 Carol earlier: > > First, forgive me, but I don't know what "inform on" means. I > > thought it meant reporting a rule-breaker. > > As for JKR "insisting" that House-Elf slavery must, erm, comment on? be analogous to? be the same as? RW slavery, that's your interpretation. > > Betsy Hp: > Let's stick with "inform on" as I think it manages to convey all three suggestions (and more) quite elegantly. ;D Carol: Elegantly? (Shiver!) It sounds like jargon to me, about as elegant as "prior to" for "because" and numerous other linguistic abominations (IMVHO). And, yeah. I know I'm getting carried away, but I'll stick with using "analogous to" for the point we're disputing here (I say that House-Elf ownership is not analogous to RL slavery; you say that it is) and using "inform on" to mean "reporting a rule-breaker" or the like. Informants inform; informers inform on. Anyway, it doesn't matter. You like the phrase. I hate it. Sort of like various readers' reactions to the resolution of the House-Elf subplot. :-) Betsy: > But yes, I am interperting that JKR meant for us to sympathize with Dobby's condition, see his owners as morally bad, and cheer for Harry figuring out a way to get Dobby his freedom. All of which depends on us seeing house-elf slavery as a bad thing, as we see RL slavery. Carol: Yes and no. It did read that way in CoS, but when we met other House-Elves, it became clear that the problem in Dobby's case was not the fact that he was owned by Wizards but the fact that he was abused. And it was the abuse to which I, at least, viscerally reacted in CoS. And it was their abuse of Dobby, not their ownership of him, that marked the Malfoys as "bad Dark Wizards." I agree that we're meant to sympathize with Dobby's condition and to see Harry's spontaneous gesture as an act of kindness. But, like many an action in the HP books, it has unexpected consequences. I'm quite sure that Harry didn't realize that he was sending Dobby into jobless, homeless disgrace. If it weren't for Dumbledore, another anomaly, what would have become of him? (Or Winky, who might have become an Elf!Merope). > Betsy: > And I do suspect JKR expected her audience to have an immediate response to the use of the word "slave". That she backed our natural interpertation by giving us an abused slave longing to be free strikes me as suggestive that she wasn't trying to show a form of "good slavery". Carol: Then how do you account for the happy House-Elves of Hogwarts? "Slavery" is Dobby's word (and Muggle-raised Hermione's) but I don't recall anyone else using it. We're talking about House-Elf ownership, which may or may not involve abuse. And it certainly appears to be a "good thing" in the eyes of the House-Elves themselves, as well as some but not all Wizards. Moreover, it seems to be an indispensable part of the WW, making debates over what to call it or whether it's good or bad in itself meaningless. The condition of servitude or ownership of House-Elves is clearly not in itself abusive or the Hogwarts House-Elves would not be thriving and happy. The enchantment that forces House-Elves to punish themselves, OTOH, is clearly horrible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's a point we all agree on. > Betsy hp: > I'm not actually saying all sci-fi and fantasy literature "equates fantasy slavery to RL human slavery." You're absolutely right, it's an unprovable contention, and beyond that, it's not germane. Carol: Good. Let's drop that argument, then. > Betsy: > As to what JKR meant to do... well that's a tangled question because I really feel JKR had no clue really. She threw things at a wall and hoped some of it stuck, no matter if there were contradictions. Carol: Ah, well. You and I agree on the futility of attempting to determine authorial intention, I think. And on the existence of contradictions throughout canon, particularly in DH, without even bringing in the interviews. But, still, canon is all we've got, and those of us on the House-Elf-servitude-is-natural-and-not-he-same-as-human-slavery side of the argument *are* using it to support our side. The reason we're looking for a different word as part of the argument is that the analogy is only partial. Human slavery is a form of abuse as horrific as foot binding or forcing women to wear burkhas. But House-Elves aren't people; they seem to have no purpose (and no desire) other than to serve Wizards and they *do* derive benefits from their servitude when they're not abused (food, tea towels, a home, productive if unpaid employment, praise for "good service," pride, happiness), Just ask Winky, who is given clothes but stripped of pride, happiness, a job, and a home by the master she still loves. If only he could and would take her back into his service, she would have everything her heart desires. If she were human, she'd look at her new job--wages and time off and everything!--as an obvious improvement over her inherited position as a family servant trusted with important work and her master's (hic!) secrets. But she's not human, so she wants her master and her home and her old job back. > Betsy: > However, by introducing us to the concept of house-elves with an abused house-elf who wanted to be freed, by continuing down that road by having all three house-elves we meet also have a painful relationship with their owners, JKR certainly did a piss poor job setting up house-elf slavery as a good thing. Carol: Well, first, you're calling it slavery, and, of course, JKR isn't going to set up *slavery* as a good thing. But House-Elf servitude or ownership is presented from a variety of perspectives. Harry must deal with them one at a time, and, as I think we agree, his perception and interpretation of events and characters is not always accurate, nor does he have complete information. First, we have Dobby, who is owned and horribly abused by "bad Dark Wizards" whom we later learn are the Malfoys. We also see that Dobby is under some sort of enchantment that forces him to punish himself when he disobeys or speaks badly of his "family." Dobby does refer to himself and other House-Elves as "slaves," but, oddly, no other House-Elf uses that term. Nor does Dobby express a wish to be free. He only laments his miserable condition, which is not replicated by any other House-Elf, not even Kreacher. (Dobby is the only House-Elf we see who wears a filthy pillowcase. All the others except the miserable "freed" Winky and the deliberately filthy Kreacher wear clean tea towels. You'd think that the Malfoys, who display their wealth with white peacocks and all that, would insist that their House-Elf look respectable. Ah, well. JKR wants a miserable, pathetic Dobby, so she puts him in a filthy pillowcase. "'Tis the mark of the House-Elf's enslavement, sir." Really, Dobby? Why isn't any other Elf wearing one, then?) Next, we have Winky, who, aside from having to deal with a fear of heights, is perfectly happy in her position and highly disapproving of Dobby's desire for freedom. Her predicament a few pages later has nothing to do with enchantments and everything to do with having let Barty Jr. get hold of a wand. (Barty Sr. isn't giving the whole story, naturally. Funny how secretive all these Wizards are.) And Winky, though disgraced and "freed," is bound, not by an enchantment but by the House-Elves' code of honor, to keep those secrets when Harry and Hermione start "nosing," even though she is technically free. (We see what she thinks of "freedom" with her drinking and descent into squalor.) Her relationship with her owner is not painful until it's severed, and she wants nothing more than to return to it. Then we have the Hogwarts House-Elves, who disapprove of both Dobby and Winky, are clean and happy and proud to serve, and refuse to pick up the hats and socks with which Hermione has insulted their intelligence and their sensibilities by trying to trick them into unwanted "freedom." Then we have Kreacher, who is not *forced* to wear a filthy rag but *chooses* to do so, just as he "cleans" by collecting family heirlooms that Sirius is trying to throw out. He has no objection at all to servitude or to being owned, only to obeying the renegade Sirius. His attitude toward the Blacks is virtually identical to Winky's toward the Crouch's. 12 GP is his home, and he is devoted to his old mistress, even if all he has left of her is a screeching painting. As soon as Hermione figures out Kreacher's psychology and needs and Harry acts on them, Kreacher becomes a devoted servant, delighted with his task of capturing the despised Mundungus, thief of the Black family heirlooms, and at the first opportunity transforms himself, unasked, into a clean, properly uniformed, and highly efficient family servant. The only difference between him and a human cook/butler/maid is that he's much more efficient and doesn't want to be paid. (He can also boss "Master Harry" around when it comes to matters like washing his hands before meals.) So. Kreacher is a happy, typical House-Elf until Regulus's death. He rebels as best he can against Sirius, the son who broke his mother's heart, and maintains a fierce and (to Sirius) inexplicable loyalty to his old mistress as he and Sirius trade insults and make each other miserable. He reverts to his old role of Black family retainer the moment Harry takes Regulus's mission onto himself. Kreacher never wants to be "free." He just wants to serve the House of Black, even if that means going to Miss Narcissa and her husband (and, later, to his adored Miss Bellatrix). Last and least, we have Hokey, who appears to be the typical devoted House-elf, perfectly happy to wait on her rich, pampered old mistress hand and foot. She's owned, certainly, and she obeys orders without question, but she's perfectly happy, just like Kreacher with the Blacks (or DH!Harry), Winky with the Crouches, and the Hogwarts House-Elves. That leaves only Dobby, the "Free Elf," who is also perfectly happy to serve Wizards (other than the Malfoys) because *that's what House-Elves do.* None of them, "free" or owned, can escape that self-punishment enchantment if they disobey their masters, but that has nothing to do with the masters. Nor can Harry or Dumbledore or anyone else lift that enchantment, though I imagine Hermione will try to find a way. > Carol earlier: > > Her House-Elves are obviously derived from antecedents in folklore, with differences to fit the needs of her plots... > Betsy Hp: > Oh, obviously. Carol: Good. We agree again. Betsy: > And then she threw in slavery. And she never pulled us out of it. Carol: Well, Dobby threw in "slavery" and called himself a "Free Elf" despite continuing to serve Wizards when he had the opportunity (what he was "free" of was the Malfoys' abuse). And Hermione threw in "slavery" and brilliantly came up with SPEW, roundly rejected by Wizard and House-Elves alike. Then she came around to the radical idea of trying to understand the psychology of House-Elves and give them what they want (which Ron and the Twins and Hagrid had been recommending all along), focusing her horror on the one unquestionably bad element of the House-Elf ownership system, the self-punishment enchantment. (She has no problem with Kreacher's obeying Harry or Harry giving reasonable and necessary orders. Nor does Kreacher have any problem with it once he's told his tale. He's more than happy to go after Mundungus--and whang him with a saucepan into the bargain. Go, Kreacher!) Betsy: > Which, again, I put down to sloppiness more than point making. Carol: Ah, well. Maybe we shouldn't be looking at "point making," which takes us back to authorial intention. Betsy: > First she needed something to show just how evil the bad wizards are, so she gave them slaves that were unhappy and abused. Carol: Well, she gives one set of Dark Wizards a House-Elf and has them abuse him. But it turns out to be the abuse, not the "slavery," that sets them apart from other Wizards and makes them bad. We see other forms of cruelty, mostly the Cruciatus Curse but also Umbridge's quill, to show how evil other bad wizards are. (Barty Jr. gives the Malfoys a run for their money in GoF, I'd say.) And we see House-Elves who are owned but not abused (or abused by being "freed"--"freedom" as punishment, with "freed" meaning "fired." We might as well say that Lupin and Umbridge were "freed" from the duties of the DADA position). Betsy: > Then she needed Harry to have a slave, so she... Carol: Actually, she needed him to have a House-Elf. And that House-Elf had to be Kreacher, not Dobby, because of the Regulus subplot. So she had to turn both Harry's and Kreacher's attitudes around, which required Harry to understand House-Elf psychology, which is where Hermione comes in. Betsy: well, she screwed up royally, IMO. Harry the happy slave-owner just doesn't have that heroic ring to it, IMO. (*Why* she wanted Harry to own a slave I really have no idea. Seriously, none.) Carol: Well, let's look at the plot. Harry needs a House-Elf (not a "slave"), in part because House-Elves have powers that Wizards don't have. Kreacher was necessary to OoP, and since she needed Harry to inherit 12 GP so that he could stay there at least for awhile in DH. That means he had to inherit Kreacher, too (or Kreacher and 12 GP could have gone to Bellatrix, in which case we'd have a completely different story). She also needed Kreacher for the Regulus subplot and to bring in Mundungus, which HRH could not have done without him. And there's the whole theme or motif of Harry's misperceptions of people and events, extended here to House-Elves. Rethinking his view of Kreacher and Regulus is a step toward rethinking Snape. (And there's the whole search for truth about Dumbledore subplot, but that works in the opposite direction.) Betsy Hp: > Since canon calls house-elves "slaves" I don't see what I'm ignoring. Carol: Dobby and Hermiome call House-Elves slaves. What you're ignoring is the differences, cited too often in this thread for me to repeat them here, between RL slavery and House-Elf servitude (and between House-Elves and humans, including the whole concept of "freedom"). > Betsy Hp: > House-elves are even more slaves than human slaves could ever be. Because of the use of magic, house-elves are in an even more horrifying condition than African slaves were. House-elves can be magically forced to not rebel. Carol: And yet both Dobby and Kreacher rebelled. And House-Elves reject "freedom." Could it be that both slavery and freedom are human concepts, which are essentially meaningless to magical creatures whose nature and psychology compel them to serve Wizards? They reject abuse, certainly. But they don't want freedom. Betsy Hp: Kreacher was forced to kill himself. Carol: If Kreacher were forced to kill himself, he would be dead. He was forced to drink poison, but not by his owner. That owner died to avenge him and made sure that Kreacher returned safely to 12 GP, entrusted with an important mission which, unknown to Regulus, was beyond Kreacher's power to carry out. Betsy: > He was also forced to inform on (heh) the scion of a family he adored. Carol: Ah. "Inform on" used correctly. :-) Only he didn't inform on Draco at all. He couldn't avoid following him, but he didn't report any valuable information. (Dobby performed that service, voluntarily.) BTW, human beings are forced to perform duties we don't want to perform all the time, paying income tax or bills or performing distasteful tasks at work, for example. And the penalty is being arrested or having the water turned off or being "freed," erm, fired. That doesn't make us slaves. It just means that someone else has authority or power over us. (I'd quote Ishmael again, but I'm sure everyone is tired of him and his bad grammar.) > > >>Betsy Hp: > > ANYTHING. Kreacher was forced to kill himself for his owner. > > > >>Carol: > > Erm, what? > > Betsy Hp: > Erm... the deadly poison he was forced to drink? Carol: By Voldemort, who was not his owner? And it didn't kill him? (No one is denying that Voldemort is an evil Dark Wizard who abuses House-Elves. That abuse is what made Regulus see the light and sacrifice himself to achieve revenge by stealing the Horcrux.) > > > >>Carol: > > Kreacher is still alive at the end of the story. > > Betsy Hp: > Lucky Kreacher. He was still forced to drink something that killed him. Carol: It didn't kill him. Nor did it kill Dumbledore or Regulus. It "just" made him and them suffer horrible memories and a terrible, burning agony that could only be abated by drinking water--which, of course, triggered the Inferi. Kreacher escaped the Inferi because he'd been ordered to return home, and Regulus, seeing his suffering and hearing what nearly happened, chose to sacrifice himself, knowing that he, unlike Kreacher, could not escape the Inferi. So, yes, Kreacher was forced to drink something that made him suffer horribly and was supposed to kill him, but not directly. But it was not Regulus who made him do it, and Regulus's remorse (paralleling Snape's for revealing the Prophecy) results in *his* truly horrible death, in full view of Kreacher, who rightly, IMO, regards Regulus as his hero (paralleling Dobby's worship of Harry but with a more direct cause) and the champion of House-Elves. > Betsy Hp: > Which is why this "good owner" argument is so much crap. Humans > aren't gods (not even the wizard version) and an order thought to be > good could turn into something horrible before the "good owner" even > realizes what they've done. With the house-elves compelled to obey, > they are completely dependent on their owners thinking out every > angle of each order. Which is, I think, an impossibility. Carol: IMO, it's all part of the actions-have-unintended-consequences motif, which we see throughout the books, most obviously with Voldemort's attempt to kill Harry and his choice to break his word to spare Lily, but also with Harry's sparing Wormtail and snape's reporting the Prophecy to Voldemort. almost forgot Sirius's brilliant idea to switch Secret Keepers. Just like all of them, Regulus had no idea what the consequences of volunteering his House-Elf to Voldemort would be, nor could he have guessed that Kreacher would be unable to destroy the Horcrux. It has nothing to do with "good ownership," that I can see. YMMV. And good thing Kreacher was compelled to obey that order to return home, eh? Otherwise, he'd have been eaten by the Inferi and Regulus would never have found out what happened to him. Betsy: > Though I still think an attempt to call a sentient being owned and controlled by another sentient being something *other* than slavery is... ah hell, it seems like trying to force something into something it's not. House-elves are slaves, they're called slaves in canon, and trying to find another word seems a bit silly, to my mind. Carol: And I think that it's important to examine the differences and not slap a loaded term onto a relationship that doesn't exist in RL, even if two, and only two, characters use it. Their views are canonically opposed by every other House-Elf and/or Wizard in the books. Hermione's SPEW efforts, as a_svirn admits, were short-sighted and futile. (Sorry. I can't remember the exact words she used, but it's one of the few points on which she and I agree. SPEW is aptly named, and I'm quite sure that JKR did it on purpose.) > > > >>Betsy HP: > > > Of course, House-elves *are* different. The parallels aren't exact. > > > >>Carol: > > Which is exactly what the rest of us have been arguing. Thank you. > > Betsy Hp: > You're welcome. :) Can we trash the "they're not slaves" argument then, please, and focus on whether slavery is a good thing for house- elves? That seems to be the actual argument. Am I wrong? Carol: Well, no, because you're asking us to use your term and then argue for or against slavery, which makes us look like slave-owners in the ante-bellum South. We can argue whether House-Elf ownership is mutually beneficial when the owner's powers aren't abused and the House-Elf is serving a master he respects, if you like. And certainly, no one is arguing that the self-punishment enchantment is a good thing. >Betsy Hp: So wait, we're supposed to like the Malfoys? > Carol: I thought that you liked Draco. But, seriously, of course, we're not supposed to like the "bad Dark Wizards" who abuse Dobby. But we're supposed to dislike their treatment of him, not their ownership. Otherwise, Dumbledore, who employs hundreds of House-Elves who doesn't want paying, is a hundred times worse than the Malfoys. The difference is that they like their jobs. They're proud to serve Hogwarts and, by extension, DD. They don't want to be "freed," not only because it would be a disgrace, in their eyes, but because they're happy. And yet, as far as we can determine, they're what you're calling "slaves." > > >>Carol: > > It was because they *abused* their House-Elf. > > Betsy Hp: > Oh. So we should hate Sirius? Carol: ? Again, I don't want to get into what we should or shouldn't do (JKR's intentions). And some readers *do* hate Sirius. he's not among my favorite characters, by any means, but I'm going to defend him here. His "abuse" of Kreacher (more than matched by Kreacher's muttered insults--for which, BTW, he is not punished) resembles Snape's "abuse" of Harry. It stems, as does Snape's, from a profound misunderstanding and loathing, and it results in an intensified hatred of the "abuser," who is also misunderstood by a "victim" predisposed to dislike him. Everyone involved is already suffering psychological damage, but neither Kreacher nor Harry loses any self-esteem, nor does either become weak and helpless like, say, Merope (or the "frre" Winky). At most, they, like their oppressors, or whatever term you want to use for Sirius and Severus, develop an unhealthy taste for revenge (another theme or motif that we see throughout the series). Comparing Sirius's treatment of Kreacher to the Malfoy's treatment of Dobby is like comparing Snape's detentions to Umbridge's or the Carrows'. Yes, Sirius is a hypocrite for criticizing Crouch's treatment of his inferiors when he's unkind and dismissive of Kreacher, but saying "Keep muttering and I will be a murderer!" when Kreacher Mutters, "Comes back from Azkaban ordering Kreacher around . . . and they say he's a murderer, too" (OoP am. ed. 110) is a far cry from making him iron his hands or beating him. And note that Kreacher says, "Master is not fit to wipe slime from his mother's boots" (109) without the slightest consequence. Betsy: > Unless, are you saying Winky is no longer a house-elf? Dobby died as something other than a house-elf? If a house-elf is no longer owned does he or she cease to be? Carol: Of course I'm not saying that. Winky wants to be owned and Dobby not only wants to serve Wizards but continues to do so. That's their nature. They remain House-Elves to the end. > Betsy: > Kreacher is Harry's property and Harry is cool with that. So he's Harry the slave-owning hero. > Carol: He's Harry the House-Elf owning hero. Alliterates better, even if it is a bit of a mouthful. And he's treating Kreacher as Kreacher wants to be treated, whereas if he fired, erm, "freed" his House-Elf, he'd be inflicting misery on a fellow creature. Carol, wondering whether Betsy et al. think that Sam was Frodo's slave in LOTR From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 02:02:00 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:02:00 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 6-11 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181008 > "Not to worry," she said. " All you have to do is walk straight at > the barrier between platforms nine and ten. Don't stop and don't be > scared you'll crash into it, that's very important. Best do it at a > bit of a run if you are nervous. Go on, go now before Ron" - p.93 > Alla: > > > > When I reread that lovely directions from Molly to Harry, I was wondering whether this indicates that intent is very important in performing the magic after all. I mean, "do not stop and do not be scared" is an indication of intent to arrive at platform, no? Mike: > Yes! I agree, and always thought that intent is a major part of magic. Carol responds: Interesting observation, both of you. But will someone (anyone?) please explain to me how--if walking straight through the barrier and being unafraid demonstrates the importance of intent in magic (and I'm not disputing that contention)--the Evans family (all Muggles except Lily) got onto Platform 9 3/4 in Snape's memory ("The Prince's Tale")? All the "intent" and fearlessnes in the world isn't going to allow a Muggle running and/or pushing a luggage cart to get through that wall. The first requirement, even more important than "intent," is that the person running through the barrier be magical. (The same applies, I'm sure, to walking through the window with the ugly dummy to get into St. Mungo's.) Carol, imagining Hagrid Apparating onto the platform with all the Muggle!Evanses in tow From valerie at calithwain.com Sat Jan 26 23:57:14 2008 From: valerie at calithwain.com (Valerie Frankel) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:57:14 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181009 Tigerqueen makes some very good points. I'm currently writing a book on how the heroine's journey works, and many books, like Narnia, Duane's Young Wizards, and The Golden Compass show both journeys, perhaps favoring the girls a bit more, even. (There's a booklist of these at www.calithwain.com if anyone's interested). Harry Potter offers saintly mothers and "victim princess types," without many others. Harry rescues Fleur and Fleur's little sister in book 4, Ginny in book 2, and various frightened kids in the later books. Hermione needs boys to rescue her in book 4's lake scene and book 3's dementor scene, to say nothing of the troll attack where she and Harry become friends. Anyway, we definitely have mostly "angels in the household" like Mrs. Weasley and Lily Potter. When does Molly do interesting magic? Only for her family (even Dumbledore seems impressed by her clock). Her big battle scene, complete with suspicious language, comes because she's protecting her daughter. One gets the impression that if her kids weren't at Hogwarts, she'd be at home rolling bandages during the final battle. Bellatrix, of course, is the bad woman. She is the anti-mother--just look at her. No children, comments that she values Voldemort above everyone, even her own husband (btw, has anyone even SEEN Mr. Lestrange?); she breaks up Neville's family by torturing his parents, and she's eager to kill her married and pregnant niece, Tonks. She's also eager to kill Neville, and we see her in the final book battling? once again?children. Voldemort, despite his legendary attacks on Harry, seems more interested in powerful wizards like Dumbledore and Kingsley?in other words, adults. Bellatrix is a type of Lady Macbeth, determined to kill all her young enemies before they can grow up. Indeed, Tonks, Fleur, and other "powerful" women, or at least equals, give up their independence and settle down. Minerva tries, but she's not very feminine, and we never see her moment as the all-powerful, unequalled headmistress defending Hogwarts in book 7 (several teachers help her gang up on Snape and her protective spells aren't significantly better than the other teachers'). Girls have limited options for Halloween: spacey Luna, walking- dictionary Hermione or only-appears-in-a-few-scenes Ginny. Still, there a lot of series out there, with as many great fantasy books for girls as there are for boys. So let's ready the Inkheart and Coraline costumes, and make sure girls feel powerful too. Valerie Frankel Author of Henry Potty and the Pet Rock: An Unauthorized Harry Potter Parody www.HarryPotterParody.com From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Sun Jan 27 03:31:43 2008 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:31:43 -0900 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6BAF77AD-F6A5-4C4A-ABC8-8E8DBA9948C1@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 181010 On 2008, Jan 26, , at 03:17, tiger_queen429 wrote: > Working Women: > There are only two examples of working women in the books. One is > Marietta Edgecome's mother. > The only other mention of a working mother is Hermione's mother who > is a dentist. I think there is another working mother mentioned, although I think perhaps she worked out of the home: Luna's mother. And look what happened to her - her spell went badly wrong and she blew herself up. Unlike the competent twins, who regularly blow things up and use extremely dangerous ingredients, the only woman we hear of who invents new things kills herself in the process. Sigh. I don't like that I agree with you, but I certainly see your point. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 04:13:20 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 04:13:20 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 13-15 post DH look Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181011 Quite apart from wanting to win, Harry found that he had fewer nightmares when he was tired out after training ? p.216 Alla: What is this supposed to mean? Connection weakens when Harry has enough of exercise???? Why did nobody bother to tell him that recipe? Do we see something like this in the later books? "It was a bit late to repair the damage, but Harry swore to himself not to meddle in things that weren't his business from now on" ? p.245 Alla: LOLOLOLOL. I guess this New Year resolution didn't work out for you, eh Harry? As he drew closer, he heard Quirrell's voice. No-no- not again please- It sounded as though somebody was threatening him. Harry moved closer. All right ? all right- he heard Quirrell's sob ? p.246 Alla: Stupid question here. Last time I reread PS/SS somewhat a year ago or so. I cannot remember for sure, but I think that all the time I was still pretty sure that it was Snape threatening Quirrell again. I mean I did not think that he was threatening because he was a villain obviously or maybe I did in light of six books, not sure. But was he really talking to Voldemort and Snape was never in that classroom in the first place? DUH Alla, if it is so. And if he was talking to Voldemort, is his sobbing sign that he was trying to resist? "Abou' time," he said." "I bin waiting' fer half an hour already. All right, Harry, Hermione?" ? p.249. Alla: I must say upon reread that I really dislike Hagrid's behavior in this chapter indeed. A little sorry to them would be nice. "When Harry pulled back his sheets, he found his invisibility cloak folded neatly underneath them. There was a note pinned to it: Just in case" ? p.261 Alla: So, let the preparation for your little test begin, eh, Albus? What if they were killed? Oh never mind, I forgot, you know secrets that they do not. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 05:25:56 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 05:25:56 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 6-11 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181012 > Carol responds: > > Interesting observation, both of you. But will someone (anyone?) > please explain to me how--if walking straight through the barrier > and being unafraid demonstrates the importance of intent in magic > (and I'm not disputing that contention)--the Evans family (all > Muggles except Lily) got onto Platform 9 3/4 in Snape's memory > ("The Prince's Tale")? Mike: Oh dear, I'm afraid my plot hole filler will have to be worked overtime on this one. Because what I believe we have here is your Scottish Highlands variety Flint. It seems to have been incubated in the same nest as the Molly Weasley line of "Now, what's the platform number?" The only difference that I've been able to detect was that this line of the Weasley matron came before the readership was aware of the existance of Flints. Nonetheless, Muggles on platform 9-3/4 begs the same question of how did the Granger parental units get into the Leaky Cauldron, to get into Diagon Alley? Mayhaps could they have held fast to their witch offsprings hand, which allows them entrance into the Leaky as well as onto the platform? Of course that raises a logistical quandry for the Evans tyke, 2 hands, 3 hand needers. Sort of like the problem of the 2 place rowboat person with need to take the dog, cat, and bird across the river without incident in his absence from either side. I suppose the Evans girl could have made two trips. Or that pushy older sister could have grabbed a handful of that pretty red hair, probably not for the first time either. Phew, I'm going to have to stop here, my plot hole filler is hot, letting off green smoke, and has developed a hitch in it's get-along. :D > Carol, imagining Hagrid Apparating onto the platform with all the > Muggle!Evanses in tow Mike, thinking Hagrid could stuff them each into a pocket of his vast overcoat, though a decidedly odoriferous mode of transport, that. ;) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 05:29:22 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 05:29:22 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181013 tiger_queen429: > It's just the more I think about them, the > more I feel that the books are very anti-woman > The only thing we find out is that Snape is good > because of his obsessive love for Lily, her feelings for him do not > matter. zgirnius: How so? If you mean from the point of view that we are not told about them ? she is presented in Snape's memories, and we get to see a good deal about her as a person, not just how she interacted with Snape, but also her relationship with her sister. And personally, I don't think that `obsession' had a chance in Hell of surviving the breakup, Lily's marriage to James, and Lily's death if it were not for the fact that she was Severus's first and best friend. Her feelings, whatever kindness, inquisitiveness, and openness made her accepting on the little oddball from the wrong side of the tracks, mattered in that sense, to the story. tiger_queen429: > Harry survived Voldemort's attack because > Lily, the mother, protected her son. zgirnius: This is a bad thing? Depicting women as brave, loving, and self- sacrificing in their roles as mothers is not anti-woman, surely? I mean, Harry was going to have a mother, so her actions towards him would necessarily be those of a mother, right? And Harry, Our Hero, follows his *mother's* footsteps, on his road to the defeat of Voldemort. And tells us so, in case we missed it. > tiger_queen429: > Lily has nothing. She's > portrayed only as Snape and James's sex object and as Harry's mother. Zgirnius: If evidence of her skill matters, we saw her move flower petals deliberately as a child. The only other person we are shown with apparently conscious control of magic pre-Hogwarts, is Tom Riddle, so she is in good company. (So to speak, ). That she makes no lasting mark with this talent, I think might have to do with the fact that she dies at 21. > tiger_queen429: >. She stands up > for Harry after he does Dark Magic and nearly kills Draco. I see this > as an example of Ginny being a mother to Harry, protecting by > sticking up for him. Zgirnius: Protecting a friend, when a woman does it, is being motherly? > Ginny never shows the fiery spirit > that Harry loves so much about her to Harry. Zgirnius: The OotP scene in which Harry thinks he has been possessed by Voldemort is an example, in my opinion. > tiger_queen42: > Hermione is the strongest of all female characters. However, she is > portrayed mostly as a mother, and only sometimes as a sex symbol. Zgirnius: The best student in her year of any gender, the nerd ? is that the mother, or the sex symbol? What about the social activist who wants to free House Elves? The schemer who traps Rita Skeeter in a jar and leads Dolores Umbridge by the nose? The DADA expert who knows how to magically secure a campsite? > tiger_queen42: > In DH she takes care of Harry and Ron. zgirnius: Indeed, she saves their lives on at least one occasion I can recall. Through an impressive display of quick thinking, logic, and magical skill at the Lovegoods'. If this is just Hermione being motherly, I think we women should all aspire to be more motherly. > tiger_queen42: > Her talents are mostly used in > the previous books to emphasis right and wrong and to help Harry and > Ron with their homework (like a mother would do). zgirnius: I disagree. While she does help the boys with their homework, her talents get plenty of use for other things. She solves 2 of the PS/SS obstacles, one with her superb grasp of logic (now there's a stereotyped depiction of a girl!). She figures out what the monster in CoS is and passes the on to Harry. Her brains guide her and Harry through a bunch of the Time Turning in PoA. She helps Harry prepare for his tasks in GoF. The DA is her brainchild. And the DH victory could not have happened without her. > tiger_queen42: >You never really see her having fun except when she is out with Victor, > but then she looks so different that Harry doesn't even recognize her. zgirnius: I must not be understanding this correctly. Hermione, in your view, never has fun except when she is dressed up to go to a ball? My inner feminist is horrified, I must say. I presumed she was having fun just being her own frizzy haired self, spending time with her friends, and bickering with Ron. > tiger_queen42: > From this story, I can see that JKR makes women not on the same level > as men. No woman is seen as the equal of Voldy or DD. zgirnius: Right, in the 20th century, the two most powerful wizards in Great Britain are male. Yet we know from the books this is not always the case. Rowena Ravenclaw was a powerful witch. Nothing suggests to me that she was weaker in magic, intelligence, or in influence to Gryffindor and Slytherin. She was a founder of Hogwarts, taught, invented novel magical devices (her tiara) and, oh yes, was a mother. If a woman lost in the mists of time could be a leader, academic, inventor, and mother, I do not see why we must suppose the same is not true in Harry's day. Does Mrs. Finnegan work? Mrs. Thomas? Mrs. Patil? We have no idea. Does Dolores Umbridge have offspring? What about Madam Marchbanks? Shop owners such as Rosmerta and Madam Malkin? Further, women who do not work, are still shown as strong and influential. Dumbledore asks Molly whether she and Arthur will join the Order, instead of waiting to talk to the man of that household. Narcissa clearly enjoys the respect of Lucius, who is seen to follow her lead in Ch. 1 of DH. > Valerie Frankel: > Hermione needs boys to rescue her in book 4's lake scene and > book 3's dementor scene, to say nothing of the troll attack where she > and Harry become friends. zgirnius: And Hermione returns the favor by rescuing Harry and Ron before the end of the book, by identifying and knowing how to neutralize Devil's Snare. The lake scene is nothing of the sort, she does not need rescue at all. Once the hour for the task was up, Dumbledore would have arranged for the removal of any unclaimed things the contestants loved best from the lake. Hermione also rescues Harry on two occasions in DH. She's no princess in a tower. > Valerie Frankel: > Anyway, we definitely have mostly "angels in the household" like Mrs. > Weasley and Lily Potter. zgirnius: Surely we know too little about Lily to class her as such? We know she was an Order member, and she died while the mother of a child 15 months old. That's it. Did she fight, before Harry entered the picture? We have no evidence to the contrary. > Valerie Frankel: > Indeed, Tonks, Fleur, and other "powerful" women, or at least equals, > give up their independence and settle down. zgirnius: Pregnancy and the early infancy of a child are a time not to work in a dangerous and physically active job. We have no reason to suppose Tonks would have stayed away from her Auror job once Teddy was a bit older, if she had not died fighting in a battle. Fleur might also work, for all we know. She got married after coming to a new country, and found herself in the middle of a war. Not the time to show her career woman stuff. > Valerie Frankel: > Minerva tries, but she's > not very feminine, and we never see her moment as the all-powerful, > unequalled headmistress defending Hogwarts in book 7 (several > teachers help her gang up on Snape and her protective spells aren't > significantly better than the other teachers'). zgirnius: Why does Minerva have to be feminine? Why does any woman?! That Rowling wrote an attractive female character (in the sense of being well liked by readers) who was not 'feminine' delights me. And I disagree about her skills as displayed in the battle. I thought she was great, everything I would have hoped for. Who else have we seen cast three Patronuses simultaneously? And the army of moving desks was just amazing. More importantly, she is a commanding presence in the battle. The other teachers follow her lead. And no, this was not just about her rank in the hierarchy, assuming Snape kept her on at Assistant Headmistress - a battle to the death is not part of anyone's teaching contract. > Girls have limited options for Halloween: spacey Luna, walking- > dictionary Hermione or only-appears-in-a-few-scenes Ginny. zgirnius: One thing I will agree with is that the major characters of the series are, with one exception, (Hermione) male. But presumably one can write a story about men, without being anti-woman. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Jan 27 08:21:54 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:21:54 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0801270021w2af55825o2ea5b4810df37332@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 181014 > > tiger_queen429: > > It's just the more I think about them, the > > more I feel that the books are very anti-woman > Lynda: After having read the original post thouroghly I have to say I disagree with it on so many different levels. The thing is, we all bring so many of our individual experiences into the reading of a book or a series of books. I see many strong female characters in these books. Some of them are married and have chosen to stay home and not work outside the house. They are still strong characters. I have honestly been very surprised to see many postings expressing surprise about Molly Weasley in the final battle in DH. I never for a single moment in reading the books considered that she might not be a strong and capable witch. She was written as that. Why would I think otherwise? Some witches marry and do retain their jobs outside the home. Apparently Tonks was one of these. Certainly she could no longer work when the members of the Order of the Phoenix were being hunted by Lord Thingy. Neither could Fleur. Post story, we are told that Ginny is a professional quidditch player and Hermione has a career in magical law. Apparently they work while they are married. As for women being seen only as sex symbols, I don't see that. Are they forming social and romantic relationships with others? Yes. Characters in books do that. As a reader I would find books written without such things very odd, romantic or not. Lynda > -- 2 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Jan 27 11:17:59 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:17:59 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181015 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tiger_queen429" wrote: > > I was a huge fan of Harry Potter. I loved the interesting world and > all the characters in it. It's just the more I think about them, the > more I feel that the books are very anti-woman. I disagree. I think JKR would say she was a feminist. She believes in women's equality. She believes in women's choices. She believes that women can be smart, popular, and be in a successful relationship with a man, AND have a job. The examples would be Ginny -- who for gosh sakes ends up as a professional Quidditch player -- and Hermione who has a career as a lawyer in the MoM. They both ARE attractive to men - Ginny, especially...but Hermione has NO problems getting a date, there's not just Viktor, Cormac is quite willing to go out with her... I think JKR is one of those feminists who believe women can have it all...children, career, partner, and be happy. It's not quite the way I think of feminism, but that's one of feminism's strengths, the ability to incorporate different viewpoints... snip >Harry Potter is set in what I can best describe as an > idealized version of the United States in the 1950's. Uh...no. I lived during the 50s in the United States, and know all about the idealized version. >Women can be > smart and successful as long as they do not even think about marriage > or a family. Women are either mothers or workers; they can't be both. Uh..no. In the 50s in the United States, women were expected to be stay at home mothers or they were lesser. Women who had to work, or who absolutely wanted to work could be: elementary school teachers (never administrators), maids, secretaries, and a few other menial occupations. They were seen as lesser. The New York Times had help wanted/male and help wanted/female categories. Girls were explicitly taught NEVER to be seen as as smart as boys, and ALWAYS to lose to boys in games or in any other competition. Women were NOT allowed to be smart and successful. Of course, there were those that were... But the REAL woman was home, not working outside the home, taking care of her children and her husband, and NOT aspiring to anything else. That was success... Those women who DID work outside the home were expected to demonstrate in all kinds of different ways that they still deferred to their husbands, and that their husbands were still in charge. > > Lily Potter: snip > She has no identity outside the men in her life. The only contact we see Lily > having is with James's friends: the letter to Sirius and tea with > Bathilda. Where are her friends other than Snape? Did she get married > then drop all contact? Sirius was James's best friend. Where are > Lily's best friends? We have all this talk about Lily being great > magical abilities, but that amounts to nothing. snip Lily has nothing. She's > portrayed only as Snape and James's sex object and as Harry's mother. I don't think it's fair or accurate to say that Lily is Snape and James' "sex object." They were both in love with her and wanted her as a partner. Sex was just part of it. Women who are seen as "sex objects" are women who men want to have sex with, and don't want any other kind of relationship with... Period. They don't want to marry them, they don't want to share their lives with them... His love for Lily was the defining element of Snape's life. That's not just about sex... We know that Severus is Lily's best friend. She makes reference to all of her friends not understanding her friendship with Severus. She has friends. But of course she doesn't see them during the time we hear about. She and James are in hiding, and they're both isolated from their friends in the larger community. > >snip Tonks: > Tonks was an interesting character in OP. Then she loses all of her > coolness. In your opinion. My opinion is that having issues and problems about relationships does not make one lose one's coolness... > In OP, Tonks is not a real woman, because she can't manage > any household spells and is pretty clumsy. Huh? She's not a real woman? By whose standards? She's a great auror, and a powerful woman. Where is it written that if she can't manage household spells, she's not a real woman? snip > In DH, she > is happy because she is pregnant, but can no longer take care of > herself. Even though she is an Auror; she has to live with her > parents because Remus does not have a way to support herself. We don't know that. Maybe she's on parental leave from the MoM, and maybe they're still paying her. We know Remus doesn't have any money, but she might have had savings of her own. Maybe she's living with her parents for the connection and support it gives her. Tonks > had pretty good job, Even though Voldy has taken over, it seems odd > that she does not have any money saved up or any other way to support > her family. We don't know that she doesn't..... > > Ginny: > Ginny in HBP becomes a sex symbol. All the boys talk about how cute > she is and her brothers worry that she dates too much. She stands up > for Harry after he does Dark Magic and nearly kills Draco. I see this > as an example of Ginny being a mother to Harry, protecting by > sticking up for him. Ginny becomes popular with the boys - agreed..... Okay. I think she stands up for Harry because she loves him. That doesn't make her a "mother" to Harry. We stand up for our partners, friends, and loved ones.... We hear that Ginny is powerful (bat bogey spells), that she has been sneaking the brooms out of the cupboard and practicing Quidditch since she was small..... >Then in DH, when everyone is arguing for her not > to fight in the final battle, she looks to Harry, and when he says > no, that is the final answer for now. No. She's not "obeying" Harry. When he doesn't support her desire to fight she figures that she hasn't any support and will have to give in for the moment. >>She does disobey Harry later, but that is not done directly. Okay, I don't get it. Harry doesn't want her to fight, but she does so at the first opportunity. That's direct enough. We see her battling Bellatrix Lestrange...she's in the fray despite the commands of her mother, father, and Harry's acquiescence. That shows her to be an independent, strong, and powerful girl. That's NOT an anti-woman message. snip > > Hermione: > Hermione is the strongest of all female characters. However, she is > portrayed mostly as a mother, and only sometimes as a sex symbol. So, sorry, but what are you saying here? Does she has to be portrayed all the time as a "sex symbol" to be a real woman? What about celibate women? We see Wilhemina Grubbly-Plank, a working woman, who is not feminine looking, but is obviously competent...we also don't KNOW that she doesn't have a family or a partner.....but maybe she is single and celibate...how is that anti-woman? Hermione is portrayed mostly as a mother? Do you mean she mothers Harry and Ron? Why, then, has all the fandom argued about whether she and Harry should become lovers/partners or she and Ron should become lovers/partners...(if she mothers them from time to time, that doesn't mean that Ron doesn't fancy her)... Do you mean she acts in a motherly way? Okay, she has her moments of reminding them to do stuff, and watching over them, and taking care of them.....that's true...but what's wrong with being motherly? What's wrong with women taking care of others? She > is the voice of reason, the rule book, and the source of wisdom. In > DH she takes care of Harry and Ron. She is the one who finds and > cooks the food and heals the wounds. Her talents are mostly used in > the previous books to emphasis right and wrong and to help Harry and > Ron with their homework (like a mother would do). You never really > see her having fun except when she is out with Victor, but then she > looks so different that Harry doesn't even recognize her. So, mothers never have fun because they are taking care of their "children?"....Maybe Hermione's idea of fun is different than yours. She loves learning; she loves reading. She derives happiness from that. Having fun is not just about going out dancing and partying... What is the problem with her looking so different that Harry doesn't recognize her..so? Why does that diminish her having fun? (really don't get it). Hermione is far more than a "mother" figure. It is she who figures out that the wizarding world MUST know the truth about Harry's encounter with LV and Cedric's death. She has investigated, captured and restrained Rita Skeeter, now she summons Rita to interview Harry. She arranges for the interview to be published. This begins to turn the tide of opinion (which WAS against Harry and DD)...people have access to the truth in the WW, and they being to believe Harry and DD...This is a brilliant piece of organizing, and changing the public perceptions of the ENTIRE WIZARDING WORLD..... Wars need strategists and public relations specialists as much as they need warriors. She is a planner and a strategist. She thought ahead enough to obtain the books about horcruxes from DD's office. But Hermione is a warrior, too! (JKR has constructed a WHOLE female -- one who has relationships, is smart, is successful, has children, who can fight and who can win --). She remembers, thinks of, and does spells in combat. It is she who obscures Harry's face so that he is not recognized by all the DEs at the Malfoy Manor...even Draco is hesitant to identify him. In the DH, she does the glissando spell on the spur of the moment, to get rid of the DEs who are in the trio's way... She is incredibly powerful and efficient on many levels (which is why a lot of fans don't like her and put her down -- they are uncomfortable with assertive and powerful females). > Molly Weasley: > Molly is seen as the ultimate mother. Yes It appears that she never works > outside the home. And that IS okay. I can understand this if there is no daycare in the > WW, but after SS/PS there is no reason for Molly not to work. She has > no kids at home to take care of, and the family could certainly use > the money. Maybe she herself wants to spend time with her children. There might be no day care, but maybe she doesn't like day care. It's not my opinion, but she has a right to hers. Snip Susan From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Jan 27 14:20:21 2008 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:20:21 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181016 tiger_queen: > I was a huge fan of Harry Potter. I loved the interesting world and > all the characters in it. It's just the more I think about them, the > more I feel that the books are very anti-woman. Ceridwen: Interesting post. I can see your point, when taken without other considerations. As someone who was dissatisfied with "Deathly Hallows" and the conclusion it sweeps back on the rest of the series, I see things in a slightly different way. I think the men were short-shrifted as much as the women, only in a different way. From the beginning, most of our viewpoint has been through the filter of a young male who is in the stage of life where he is looking for male role models. He lacks a father, and the father-figure at home hates his guts and locks him in a cupboard. He meets exciting new people and idealizes the males. Around the filter, though, these idealized males are lacking. Some are failures (Remus has one job which lasts less than a year). Some have secrets which would negatively impact a very young impressionable boy (Dumbledore collaborating with Grindelwald, even for a few weeks). Some are distant or necessarily absent (Arthur Weasley, with his long hours at the Ministry). Some have self- defeating or self-destructive behaviors (a lot of people thought that OotP Sirius came across as a closet alcoholic). The hero's late father is, in my opinion, portrayed as a jerk, which rachets up by a power when he is shown with his friends. The supreme villain gets a case of James Bond Villain Blind Spot and other less-than-brilliant moments. The "bad guy" who is really on Our Side is hobnailed by feelings for a long-dead schoolmate and incapable of moving on. Draco, the hero's direct opposite, will say anything to save his own skin while his father meekly follows his wife's strong lead. Speaking of the Black sisters, Bellatrix and Narcissa are shown to be strong, even if their strength is tied up with the Wrong Side. Bellatrix's loyalty would put a lot of Real Life males to shame. Loyalty is the chief characteristic which will bring plans to fruition. Narcissa sets the tone for her family under extreme duress at the beginning of DH. Molly Weasley, who is somehow related to the Blacks, may come across as a neurotic who goes around the house worrying, but she's a strong presence moreso than her husband. I think a lot of things fell flat with the last book, including but certainly not limited to the treatment of female characters. I don't think a case can be made for singling out females for negative writing any more than males. Ceridwen. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 15:08:53 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:08:53 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 13-15 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181017 > PS/SS: > Quite apart from wanting to win, Harry found that he had fewer > nightmares when he was tired out after training ? p.216 > > Alla: > > What is this supposed to mean? Connection weakens when Harry has > enough of exercise???? Why did nobody bother to tell him that > recipe? Do we see something like this in the later books? zgirnius: The practice Snape assigns to Harry in OotP, as homework for the Occlumency lessons, and Harry never does, is, every night, to clear his mind before falling asleep. If a person is sufficiently tired, this may occur naturally if a person just falls into bed and sleeps like a log, rather than lying in bed wondering about the events of the day, etc. (And I can imagine the posts I would have been reading if Snape had made Harry exercise until he was exhausted as part of the lessons, haha!) Though I imagine in the long term this wold just make someone tired, and make them susceptible during the day, as during Harry's History of Magic OWL. > PS/SS: > As he drew closer, he heard Quirrell's voice. > No-no- not again please- > It sounded as though somebody was threatening him. Harry moved > closer. > All right ? all right- he heard Quirrell's sob ? p.246 > Alla: > But was he really talking to Voldemort and Snape was never in that > classroom in the first place? DUH Alla, if it is so. > > And if he was talking to Voldemort, is his sobbing sign that he was > trying to resist? zgirnius: I thought this was Voldemort after my first reading of the book. I don't think it necessarily means Quirrell was resisting. More likely, he was not getting things done fast enough to please Voldemort. (See, e. g., Draco Malfoy crying in bathrooms in HBP). From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 15:18:15 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:18:15 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 13-15 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181018 > zgirnius: > The practice Snape assigns to Harry in OotP, as homework for the > Occlumency lessons, and Harry never does, is, every night, to clear > his mind before falling asleep. If a person is sufficiently tired, > this may occur naturally if a person just falls into bed and sleeps > like a log, rather than lying in bed wondering about the events of > the day, etc. Alla: Could you clarify please what you meant here? I mean I definitely thought about Occlumency lessons, but relaxation supposed to be sort of opposite to intense Quidditch like training, no? Or are you saying that had Harry been exercising physically he would not have need to close his mind, that would have occurred automatically maybe? Zgirnius: (And I can imagine the posts I would have been reading > if Snape had made Harry exercise until he was exhausted as part of > the lessons, haha!) Alla: Snort, oh yeah. I will be the first one to scream - stop abusing him you greasy git. > Though I imagine in the long term this wold just make someone tired, > and make them susceptible during the day, as during Harry's History > of Magic OWL. Alla: Agreed. > zgirnius: > I thought this was Voldemort after my first reading of the book. I > don't think it necessarily means Quirrell was resisting. More likely, > he was not getting things done fast enough to please Voldemort. (See, > e. g., Draco Malfoy crying in bathrooms in HBP). Alla: It is Voldemort, if Quirrell speaks the truth in chapter 17. DUH Alla one more time. It is the forgetting such things that makes me want to reread the books again and again among other reasons. Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 15:55:24 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:55:24 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic resolutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181019 > >>Betsy: > > And I do suspect JKR expected her audience to have an immediate > > response to the use of the word "slave". > > > >>Carol: > Then how do you account for the happy House-Elves of Hogwarts? > Betsy Hp: At the time I equated them with the happy slaves of well run homes in the South. > >>Carol: > We're talking about House-Elf ownership, which may or may not > involve abuse. > Betsy Hp: Yes we are. Just as not every black slave was abused, not every house-elf is abused. But it's still slavery no matter how thick the velvet glove. > >>Carol: > > Could it be that both slavery and freedom are human concepts, which > are essentially meaningless to magical creatures whose nature and > psychology compel them to serve Wizards? Betsy Hp: Obviously not, as Dobby the house-elf used them. > >>Carol: > They reject abuse, certainly. But they don't want freedom. > Betsy Hp: Without freedom, house-elves cannot reject abuse. They can only endure. And Kreacher seemed quite desperate for freedom when he was screaming "I won't, I won't" on Harry's carpet. > >>Betsy Hp: > > He was also forced to inform on (heh) the scion of a family he > > adored. > >>Carol: > Ah. "Inform on" used correctly. :-) > Betsy Hp: I've never used it incorrectly. Again, beauty of the English language. (Seriously, do some research, because it's a much richer phrase than you're giving it credit for.) > >>Carol: > > BTW, human beings are forced to perform duties we don't want to > perform all the time, paying income tax or bills or performing > distasteful tasks at work, for example. And the penalty is being > arrested or having the water turned off or being "freed," erm, > fired. That doesn't make us slaves. > Betsy Hp: Of course it doesn't. Being owned makes you a slave. Like with the house-elves owned by wizards. > >>Carol: > We can argue whether House-Elf ownership is mutually beneficial > when the owner's powers aren't abused and the House-Elf is serving > a master he respects, if you like. > Betsy Hp: I'd agree with that. Giving the house-elf freedom to choose who she wishes to serve would go a long way towards that. Because from what we've seen, house-elves are not always owned by those they respect. And there's nothing they can do about it. (The downside to being a slave.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > Unless, are you saying Winky is no longer a house-elf? Dobby died > > as something other than a house-elf? If a house-elf is no longer > > owned does he or she cease to be? > >>Carol: > Of course I'm not saying that. Winky wants to be owned and Dobby not > only wants to serve Wizards but continues to do so. That's their > nature. They remain House-Elves to the end. Betsy Hp: And yet, both of them were free. And Winky refused to serve. So, as per your argument, neither of them were house-elves. I'd say saying a house-elf *must* be a slave, *must* be owned isn't very well backed by canon. > >>Betsy: > > Kreacher is Harry's property and Harry is cool with that. So > > he's Harry the slave-owning hero. > >>Carol: > He's Harry the House-Elf owning hero. Alliterates better, even if it > is a bit of a mouthful. > Betsy Hp: Also, lacks accuracy. :) Harry owns Kreacher. A house-elf is still a house-elf when not owned. So an owned house-elf is a slave. So Harry is a slave-owner. Again, the velvet glove, the candy coating, only covers the ugliness underneath. Kreacher is Harry's property. > >>Carol, wondering whether Betsy et al. think that Sam was Frodo's > slave in LOTR Betsy Hp: I do actually see a difference between being a servant and being a slave (having been a servant a time or two myself, but never a slave). Sam was able to say "no". Several times in fact. A house- elf would have left Frodo to journey on alone when Frodo gave the order. The house-elf would have had no choice. And Frodo would have died and the journey would have failed. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181000 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Worms *always* turn. (The current Battlestar Galactica > > deals with exactly this issue.) It's why, despite Harry's > > assurance that all is well, I expect the WW will rupture into > > destructive violence sooner rather than later. > >>Pippin: > If the purpose of the house-elf plot arc is to inform us about > the difference between naive do-goodery and enlightened > activism, it can end once our heroes understand. Betsy Hp: But, we never see any of our heroes engage in enlightened activism. So I'd say either the arc failed, or it wasn't there in the first place. > >>Pippin: > > But since Harry and Hermione know as well as anyone that worms > always turn, why assume that they aren't doing their best to treat > house-elves as house-elves want to be treated? Betsy Hp: I've never seen Harry or Hermione experience a worm turning. Those they stomp on either stay down or die. And they've never themselves been worms. So actually, they're perfect examples of those who'd be most surprised by a rebellion, IMO. I think as long as the good treatment of house-elves benefits them, they'll treat house-elves well. But as we've seen, if Harry needs to abuse his house-elf, he'll do it. And Hermione will (maybe) shake her head. > >>Pippin: > That all is well with the WW, as with the Hogwarts Express, not > because it has arrived at its destination but because reasonable > progress is being made? Betsy Hp: I've seen nothing to suggest progress is why. Why assume something of which we've seen no sign? I honestly don't think we're supposed to see an issue with house-elf slavery. Dobby's life was ultimately useless (he was just a mad fool) and Harry betrayed him in the end. Betsy Hp From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 17:12:19 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:12:19 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 13-15 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181020 > Alla: > Could you clarify please what you meant here? I mean I definitely > thought about Occlumency lessons, but relaxation supposed to be sort > of opposite to intense Quidditch like training, no? zgirnius: Our experiences of physical training must be different, lol. The non- relaxation of actually doing the physical training, involves rather exclusive focus on very specific things. Like the ball and my teammates, or not getting flipped onto my back, or staying on the &^% #*! treadmill, which would again prevent me from thinking about the regular worries and thoughts of my life. The aftermath, in my experience, can be quite relaxed, when I am too sore/tired to think about the stresses and problems in my life, which might otherwise occupy my thoughts. And it is this aftermath, I think, that has Harry experiencing fewer dreams in PS/SS. Instead of thinking about Umbridge, and the visions, and the Occlumency lessons and how he hates them, and being ignored by Dumbledore, and whatever other problems Harry ahs in OotP, before he finally falls asleep, PS/SS Harry just falls into bed, thinks "great to finally be in bed" and sleeps like a log. This latter is much closer to clearing his mind of all thoughts and feelings than the former. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Jan 27 17:21:36 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:21:36 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181021 > Ceridwen: > I think the men were short-shrifted as much as the women, only in a > different way. From the beginning, most of our viewpoint has been > through the filter of a young male who is in the stage of life where > he is looking for male role models. He lacks a father, and the > father-figure at home hates his guts and locks him in a cupboard. He > meets exciting new people and idealizes the males. Magpie: I agree. Basically what I would say was that in general, women are equal to men--there's no question that they can't do jobs like men can or that they aren't valuable assets to the good side--Harry wouldn't have gotten two steps without Hermione. However, I would also say that the books are riddled with traditional male/female ideas that aren't exactly enlightened, and that might give the sexist impression. JKR famously said in an interview regarding Lily "hating" James in the SWM scene that she didn't really hate him, and then added "You're a woman. You know what I'm talking about." There's a lot of that "You're a woman, you know what we're like" feeling in the book, a confident tone about how women act, particularly with regards to men, and it is imo based on stereotypes. Harry and Ron are both chased by girls, there's oversexed but unttractive enough women lying in wait for men and trying to trap them and generally being repulsive. I actually must disagree with all the "Tonks is a great auror" defenses because I've never seen her be a great auror. I've seen her be a woman who leaves her post and loses her powers because her primary focus in the books is her man and not her job--which doesn't make me condemn her since some people are more focused one way than another, but she had a long time to impress me with her auror skills and instead gave the consistent impression that this wasn't her strong point. She's mostly linked to Merope Gaunt. Maybe it's due to the male focus of the books, but female relationships are also all based around men (including Hermione and Ginny) or second string to the relationships the females have with males. The pure female/female friendships in the books are given the shorthand of silly giggling pairs or groups. So yeah, I actually see the books demonstrating plenty of negative female strereotypes and I don't identify with the way females as a group are mostly presented in canon. I think that JKR does automatically revert to "female helps her male or child" default. I think it's a bit too generalized to say that this means she's encouraging any anti-feminist ideas. I just think she as an individual woman believes in the truth of a lot of things about "how women are" that aren't as universal as she thinks they are. I find them rather sexist, but she probably just thinks they're the way things are. It's not just with women that this happens in the books, of course. All these characters are coming out of one mind so as different as they all are they're all going to hold many of the same things to be true about the world that the author does. They're demonstrating her view of the world, so naturally they conform to it. -m From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 27 17:57:59 2008 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 27 Jan 2008 17:57:59 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 1/27/2008, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1201456679.10.59767.m42@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 181022 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday January 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 utenasan at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 19:41:35 2008 From: utenasan at yahoo.com (utenasan) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:41:35 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181023 > Susan: > So, mothers never have fun because they are taking care of > their "children?"....Maybe Hermione's idea of fun is different than > yours. She loves learning; she loves reading. She derives happiness > from that. Having fun is not just about going out dancing and > partying... > What is the problem with her looking so different that Harry doesn't > recognize her..so? Why does that diminish her having fun? (really > don't get it). I agree with Susan. I like to write papers on Harry Potter and I've written a fair bit of fanfic in another fandom. To me that's fun. My idea of fun is definitely different from some people, but not so much from others (I'm not the only one writing HP papers and Anime fanfic). Also, when I'm at a HP conference I'm probably at least a bit unrecognizable to my co-workers. I wear a hat and cloak. I am definitely having fun recognizable by people I know or not. Yolanda From utenasan at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 20:03:00 2008 From: utenasan at yahoo.com (utenasan) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:03:00 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181024 > Magpie: > I actually must disagree with all the "Tonks is a great auror" > defenses because I've never seen her be a great auror. I've > seen her be a woman who leaves her post and loses her powers > because her primary focus in the books is her man and not her > job--which doesn't make me condemn her since some people are > more focused one way than another, but she had a long time to > impress me with her auror skills and instead gave the consistent > impression that this wasn't her strong point. She's mostly > linked to Merope Gaunt. I disagree with your disagreement. Tonks is one of the "new" members inducted into the Order. DD or Moody must have thought well of her abilities to trust her. Neither of them, wouldn't have selected someone to stand beside them or other Order members in life or death situations if they didn't think she was up to the task. She was part of the guard for Harry and when Harry was lying immobile under an invisability cloak she found him awful quick. She apparently had some skills. Also, becoming an auror itself isn't a cakewalk. Here's what it takes to get into the training program: "Training to be an Auror takes three years after leaving Hogwarts; the Aurors ask for a minimum of five N.E.W.T.s, with nothing under "Exceeds Expectations" grade. Apart from Defence Against the Dark Arts, the recommended N.E.W.T.s include Charms, Potions (particularly the study of poisons and antidotes), and Transfiguration (OP29)." Tonks then had to pass "a background check for a criminal record, and "a stringent series of character and aptitude tests at the Auror office." Here's what they do: "The Aurors are an elite group of witches and wizards who battle the Dark Arts. They operate in some ways as soldiers but more often as intelligence agents, seeking out Dark wizards and defeating them, often in fierce wizard duels." We've seen by what happened to the Longbottoms and Moody that it isn't an easy job. Being an auror at all means she's not a lightweight mentally or magically. Yolanda From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Sun Jan 27 20:36:57 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:36:57 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181025 > Ceridwen: > > snip. > I think a lot of things fell flat with the last book, including > but certainly not limited to the treatment of female characters. Sorry I have to disagree with you Ceridwen about DH. I felt it was the best of the books and in my opinion it did not fall flat. It tied up everything nicely and the writing was positive to both sexes. Jayne Still a newbie here From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Sun Jan 27 20:39:55 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:39:55 -0000 Subject: Sirius as a dog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181026 > > Jayne: > > Did he not know before what Sirius was. I thought he knew at > > the end of Po A when Sirius tansformed to fight Lupin who was > > a werewolf at this time. > zgirnius: > In the movie, Snape is conscious and present when Lupin transforms. > In the book, he is unconscious after being hit by the Trio's > Stunning spells. Yes you're right Zgirnius. I did watch the movie (Which I thought was great) as well as reading the book. I had forgotton that Snape was unconscious in the book. Thanks. Did he not find out in school though? Jayne From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Jan 27 21:36:43 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:36:43 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181027 > > Magpie: > > > I actually must disagree with all the "Tonks is a great auror" > > defenses because I've never seen her be a great auror. I've > > seen her be a woman who leaves her post and loses her powers > > because her primary focus in the books is her man and not her > > job--which doesn't make me condemn her since some people are > > more focused one way than another, but she had a long time to > > impress me with her auror skills and instead gave the consistent > > impression that this wasn't her strong point. She's mostly > > linked to Merope Gaunt. Yolanda > > I disagree with your disagreement. Tonks is one of the "new" > members inducted into the Order. DD or Moody must have thought > well of her abilities to trust her. Neither of them, wouldn't > have selected someone to stand beside them or other Order members > in life or death situations if they didn't think she was up to > the task. Magpie: I didn't disagree that she *was* an auror, I disagreed that I ever saw her doing anything to show she was a particularly good auror. You're not describing that here, you're saying that she must have been a good one or else she wouldn't have been there, but I didn't see any of it. This is exactly my point--yeah, I can "tell" myself that it's hard to become an auror and if she's in the Order maybe she's supposed to be good at it, but when it comes to showing her doing things in canon she doesn't stand out in that regard. She's far more known for pining after Lupin and losing her powers and getting left by Lupin. The barrel must be pretty empty if we're scraping the bottom to come up with checking an empty train and finding Harry stuck there into impressive auror action. -m From utenasan at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 22:04:39 2008 From: utenasan at yahoo.com (utenasan) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:04:39 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181028 > Magpie: > I didn't disagree that she *was* an auror, I disagreed that I > ever saw her doing anything to show she was a particularly good > auror. You're not describing that here, you're saying that she > must have been a good one or else she wouldn't have been there, > but I didn't see any of it. This is exactly my point--yeah, I > can "tell" myself that it's hard to become an auror and if she's > in the Order maybe she's supposed to be good at it, but when it > comes to showing her doing things in canon she doesn't stand out > in that regard. She's far more known for pining after Lupin and > losing her powers and getting left by Lupin. The barrel must be > pretty empty if we're scraping the bottom to come up with checking > an empty train and finding Harry stuck there into impressive auror > action. I admit checking the train would make common sense, however if I remember correctly, she found an invisible boy pretty fast. Either she cast a spell or she knows how to search a train long enough to carry all of Hogwarts quickly. Remember, in JKR's mind, there are 1000 students at Hogwarts. That's a lot of compartments. So, Tonks knows a spell that can find people who are concealed or she used her "auror skills" to search a train quickly. I think that counts as skill either way. It may not be a heroic battle against Bellatrix, but it is validation of her as an auror. Yolanda From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 22:15:30 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:15:30 -0000 Subject: Tonks as Auror and aurors in general WAS: Re: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181029 > Magpie: > I didn't disagree that she *was* an auror, I disagreed that I ever > saw her doing anything to show she was a particularly good auror. > You're not describing that here, you're saying that she must have > been a good one or else she wouldn't have been there, but I didn't > see any of it. This is exactly my point--yeah, I can "tell" myself > that it's hard to become an auror and if she's in the Order maybe > she's supposed to be good at it, but when it comes to showing her > doing things in canon she doesn't stand out in that regard. She's far > more known for pining after Lupin and losing her powers and getting > left by Lupin. The barrel must be pretty empty if we're scraping the > bottom to come up with checking an empty train and finding Harry > stuck there into impressive auror action. Alla: I do not remember Tonks' doing any super impressive fits of magic either, but I do not remember ANY aurors showing any particularly impressive fits of magic either, so I think it is more because not much attention devoted to show how good Aurors as institution are, not because Tonks specifically is not portrayed as impressive Auror. IMO of course. I do see the mention of them doing their job though from time to time, even if it is not done a la Twins' fireworks. I mean, really, what is impressive magic? The magic that gets the job done, yes? Kingsley performing memory charm on Marietta, was that impressive or just effective? But I do see Tonks doing her job - as Yolanda said she is in the guard who brings Harry to Grimmauld place. I do not remember any of them showing spectacular magic there, they just did their job in delivering Harry, no? I mean Moody dissilusioned him, but does it count as spectacular magic? Apparently Tonks was good enough dueller to knock Lucius Malfoy out in the battle of MoM before she was hurt. After she throws a stunner Lucius dear is not heard from anymore. Sounds impressive enough to me. And she was brave enough to try and take on Bella before that, even though she did not suceeded, but with Lucius apparently she did. I mean, I am just wondering which auror in the book you see as portrayed particularly skilled? Moody is so skilled that he spent a year in the trunk. We finally see teachers shine in DH, but besides that I remember only one adult showing spectacular battle magic and that's Dumbledore of course ( I am only talking about battle magic, I know that teachers were shown to be good at their subjects) JMO, Alla From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sun Jan 27 22:16:35 2008 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:16:35 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Numbers of Students (WAS: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman) Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFC63279@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 181030 Yolanda: Remember, in JKR's mind, there are 1000 students at Hogwarts. That's a lot of compartments. Sharon: Did she say that in an interview? How could there be that many students? I know there's been a discussion on here before about numbers not being verified - -there could be lots of students there that don't get a mention becuase they're not part of the story. But 1000! That would be about 115 in each year. We only really hear of about 40 in Harry's year. How could there be another 75 that don't have anything to do with the story? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 22:52:02 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:52:02 -0000 Subject: House-Elves yet again Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181031 We're getting nowhere in the House-Elves are/are not slaves debate, and those of us who feel that the House-Elf ownership is sufficiently different from human slavery to justify the use of that loaded term (All in favor of slavery, say "Aye!") are also getting nowhere. Call it a draw as neither side seems likely to persuade the other to give an inch. Let me start from scratch. Here are the points that seem to me indisputable, and I'm not going to support them with canon yet again as they've all been covered in the previous discussion. 1) House-Elves are not human, either physically or psychologically. 2) House-Elves, even those who have been "freed," willingly (Dobby) or unwillingly (Winky), want to serve Wizards. 3) Unlike humans, House-Elves are willing to work without pay or benefits (with the partial exception of Dobby, who talks Dumbledore into *lower* wages and *fewer days off, the opposite of what most humans would do). We have no indication that House-Elves want to work for nonhuman masters or employers or for themselves (which is why, Magpie, I talked about their not wanting to open a business as we see Wizards doing). All they want to do, so far as I can see, is to work for Wizards. 4) While House-Elves can do other tasks, such as fetching Mundungus Fletcher, they not surprisingly prefer housework and are exceptionally good at it. (My guess is that their magic is specially adapted to the Elf equivalent of "householdy spells" and to enabling them to keep out of sight ("the mark of a good House-Elf is that he's not seen," as somebody says). 5) House-Elves seem to belong to old pureblood families or ancient institutions like Hogwarts, indicating that they have been part of the WW for a long time. (Needless to say, we don't see them in the homes of Muggle-borns. Whether any Half-Bloods own a House-Elf, I can't say.) 6) Not all House-Elves are abused by their masters, and even abuse is not sufficient reason in the minds of most House-Elves (Dobby is the lone exception) to desire "freedom." 7) "Freedom," at least in the books, is accomplished through clothes, not legislation. One Elf is unwillingly "freed" and, like the majority of House-Elves, if the Hogwarts Elves are any indication, regards "freedom" (and the clothes that go with it) as a disgrace. A second Elf is accidentally freed (through a trick of Harry's) and is ecstatic. He regards, too, regards clothes as a symbol of "freedom" but, unlike Winky, he wears them proudly. Nevertheless, his "freedom" is not all that wonderful, as it amounts to homelessness and unemployment for a year, and if it weren't for Dumbledore, both he and Winky would have remained outcasts (or starved to death). No one wants a disgraced House-Elf, especially one who "wants paying." 8) The enchantment that binds a House-Elf to serve a particular family can be broken by giving the House-Elf clothes, but the enchantment that forces a House-Elf to punish himself if he disobeys his master (or even his paid employer, as we see with Dobby and Umbridge, remains in place). They are, it seems, two separate enchantments, and it's the second, the self-punishment enchantment, that seems more horrific to Hermione, our spokeswoman for the Elf cause. 9) SPEW is unworkable because neither Elves nor Wizards want anything to do with it. The Hogwarts House-Elves have made it clear through he equivalent of a sit-down strike that they do *not* want to be "freed," nor do they want human do-gooders "nosing" (to use Winky's word) in their business. 10) An unhappy House-Elf can work against his master in surprisingly effective ways, either making his life miserable (Kreacher) or aiding his enemies (Kreacher and Dobby) or both. (I'm not counting the "freed" Elf, Winky, who was wholly useless in her new, presumably paid, job, and would have been "sacked" by any human employer for her conduct.) 11) A happy House-Elf (one who is well-treated and has a master he respects) performs well and efficiently, wanting no other reward than an occasional compliment ("Good service!"). They can, apparently, keep their own tea towels clean and undoubtedly eat some of the food they prepare for their masters. An unhappy House-Elf (Dobby in his grungy pillowcase and Kreacher in his filthy loincloth) either can't or won't keep himself clean. (Winky is another case in point, with her burned skirt and soiled blouse). It seems to me that Pippin is right: having a House-elf is only beneficial to the House-elf owner when it's mutually beneficial. Treat your House-Elf well and he'll be happy, giving you good service, which will make *you* happy. Treat him badly, and your house will be dirty because the Elf will find a way to subvert you (Kreacher's idea of "cleaning" and Sirius's "little joke" about the House of Black getting "blacker" every day). So, supposing that the self-punishment enchantment, which no one on this list or in the books sees as a good thing, is lifted, with penalties instituted for abusing a House-Elf. Is that sufficient? (I think it is,) Or must we return to SPEW, and "free" the Elves against their will? (I think we've been shown that that's a bad idea.) I know that some people think that the House-Elves are supposed to have "freedom of choice" to find a new master (they're not, let's face it, going to open a business or become professors). But where are they supposed to find these new masters? An employment agency run by the MoM? And what's the guarantee that they'd find a suitable employer? More important, how are the Elves supposed to be "freed" if the only way to do it is by giving them all clothes? (Legislation can't undo an enchantment.) The mass of Elves live lives of quiet service to Wizards, and they've made it clear that they don't want clothes, thank you. Surely, that wish ought to be respected. Carol, who is all for ending House-Elf abuse but not for forcing unwanted "freedom" on them From angellima at xtra.co.nz Sun Jan 27 23:02:29 2008 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:02:29 +1300 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic resolutions Message-ID: <002101c86138$b15ca200$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 181032 Carol: Elegantly? (Shiver!) It sounds like jargon to me, about as elegant as "prior to" for "because" and numerous other linguistic abominations (IMVHO). And, yeah. I know I'm getting carried away, but I'll stick with using "analogous to" for the point we're disputing here (I say that House-Elf ownership is not analogous to RL slavery; you say that it is) and using "inform on" to mean "reporting a rule-breaker" or the like. Informants inform; informers inform on. Anyway, it doesn't matter. You like the phrase. I hate it. Sort of like various readers' reactions to the resolution of the House-Elf subplot. :-) My goodness I welcome such abominations, they have made geniuses of otherwise simplistic eccentrics :) When I read Betsy's comment I had no inkling that "inform on" was so convoluted and hated . In fact, the definition you have in mind "tell on" had not occurred to me until you queried it because it made no sense in the context of Betsy's comment.. Perhaps if there was a hyphen there then I would have read it as snitching on, because "inform on" literally means speak of, expatriate on, tell of which I gather was Betsy's meaning. After all, they are just two separate words which together shed light on following words. Advertisers are informants who inform on their products :) Teachers are informers who inform on subjects, geddit Carol: Yes and no. It did read that way in CoS, but when we met other House-Elves, it became clear that the problem in Dobby's case was not the fact that he was owned by Wizards but the fact that he was abused. And it was the abuse to which I, at least, viscerally reacted in CoS. And it was their abuse of Dobby, not their ownership of him, that marked the Malfoys as "bad Dark Wizards." Angel: At Dobby's introduction he spoke of his condition as that of slavery. He did not like being a slave before Voldemort's time although the conditions were better - less abuse. No, Dobby's problem was that of ownership, the abuse was an exacerbation of his problem not the cause...other elves explained Dobby's problem? How so? Carol: Then how do you account for the happy House-Elves of Hogwarts? "Slavery" is Dobby's word (and Muggle-raised Hermione's) but I don't recall anyone else using it. We're talking about House-Elf ownership, which may or may not involve abuse. And it certainly appears to be a "good thing" in the eyes of the House-Elves themselves, as well as some but not all Wizards. Moreover, it seems to be an indispensable part of the WW, making debates over what to call it or whether it's good or bad in itself meaningless. Angel: Ron from a long line of pure wizarding blood made no effort to counter Hermione's terminology of slavery when applied to elves. Moreover in OotP, Dumbledore's reaction to the destroyed fountain implied the wizarding stance on elves and goblins was wrong! Hogwarts elves do seem happy, hmmm they spurn efforts to free them, a right ol happy bunch lol. Besides what do they know of freedom? They cannot miss that which they never had, wizards however are well aware of the restraints and cruelty they have imparted on elves. >>>>>> Hermione, it seems to me, has learned that House-Elves are magical creatures that think differently from humans (whether Wizard or Muggle) and have different values from teenage girls who lived until age eleven in postmodern Muggle Britain (with presumably liberal parents). The pureblood Wizards' view of House-Elves, as represented by Ron (and that of nonpurebloods who grew up in the WW, like Hagrid) matches the House Elves' view of themselves much more closely than Hermione's does. That Ron is right and Hermione is wrong is clearly shown by Winky's hysterics when Hermione tries to comfort her and talk about her rights and by the Hogwarts Elves' reactions to Ron's compliment "Good service!" (they beam with joy and pride) in contrast to their reaction to Hermione (shooing HRH out of the kitchen, which as "slaves" you'd think they'd be unable to do). Angel: Well a lot of what came before DH went to custard in my opinion which has been refuted eloquently on here :). I thought Hermione dropping SPEW or the ideal of ELF-freedom was one more area where the books failed, not wherein one of its character's found enlightenment...that was so weird!!! One minute I'm expecting elf-liberation the next I'm getting spoon fed happy slave = good. What the heck was that? Honestly, author and editor in my view really dropped the tart on this! I am astounded by the optimism of some readers on here, not once did I think I was supposed to change course on elf-slavery until such comments as the above to explain Hermione's change of heart. Also I query the beam with joy and pride vs the shooing of the trio out as argument for happy enslavement er free to serve idea. The elves are happy to serve, that much is made clear propoundingly but who they serve is not always a choice! The master trumps the elve's natural propensity to serve and please whom they please. Besides elfish obligence to students was not clarified. They were Hogwarts chattel not property of individual students :) Carol: Yes and no. It did read that way in CoS, but when we met other House-Elves, it became clear that the problem in Dobby's case was not the fact that he was owned by Wizards but the fact that he was abused. And it was the abuse to which I, at least, viscerally reacted in CoS. And it was their abuse of Dobby, not their ownership of him, that marked the Malfoys as "bad Dark Wizards." Angel: Then by all means Harry abused Kreacher by getting him to spill Master Regulus' secrets!!! He exercised his power against Kreacher's will. But I do get what you mean, it's not the fact that Dobby was owned but that he was owned by bad wizards, but the world is better now that Kreacher is owned by a good wizard! This is another of those win-win situations, it's heading nowhere. The arguments against the notion of elves as slaves are elusive and those for it have become repetitive, I mean what is so hard to digest? We have compared Voldy and DEs from a magical made up world to real world dictatorship and the gestapo yet contrasting elf-servitude to real life slavery is...apparently a merry go round. So side-stepping the above issue I have a question, well one main question :) With wizardry ideologies of magic is might, just how mightier are elves than wizards? We saw that the powerful protections of Hogwarts and Voldy's cave had no effect on them, not wizard tag, not even the draught of death if it counters an order from the master. They do not need wands unlike goblins who aggrieve their lack and wizards who rely on theirs. My question is, in case someone misses it is: Are elves enslaved because are the magically mightier? Please do not reply with: elves are not enslaved, I have read that position clearly yet ask the same question [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aletamosquito at gmail.com Sun Jan 27 23:07:06 2008 From: aletamosquito at gmail.com (Aleta Turner) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:07:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Different values of Snape/ Re: House elves In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3591e0870801271507h76357802o229fd5f512ef3291@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 181033 On Jan 24, 2008 4:14 PM, a_svirn wrote: > a_svirn: > He hasn't actually *done* anything to Neville. He called him > names and bullied him, yes. Snape does engage in (intended) animal cruelty to Neville's toad. When he doses Trevor with Neville's shrinking potion, Snape fully intends to kill the toad. It is only because Hermione helped Neville that he had a proper potion, and Trevor was reduced to a tadpole which Snape could restore to adulthood. Snape would have been happy to kill the toad just out of spite. Aleta ~~~~~~~~ "Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could. Tomorrow is a new day; begin it well and serenely and with too high a spirit to be encumbered with your old nonsense." --Ralph Waldo Emerson From utenasan at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 23:23:11 2008 From: utenasan at yahoo.com (utenasan) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:23:11 -0000 Subject: Numbers of Students (WAS: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman) In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFC63279@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181034 > Yolanda: > Remember, in JKR's mind, there are > 1000 students at Hogwarts. That's a lot of compartments. > > > Sharon: > Did she say that in an interview? How could there be that many students? J.K. Rowling confirmed in an online chat that there are about 1,000 students at Hogwarts. [Online Chat with J.K. Rowling, Scholastic, 16 October 2000.] It has been debated, however that was what JKR pictures in her mind. Yolanda From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Jan 27 23:28:17 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:28:17 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman/Different Values of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181035 Yolanda: > I admit checking the train would make common sense, however if I > remember correctly, she found an invisible boy pretty fast. Either > she cast a spell or she knows how to search a train long enough to > carry all of Hogwarts quickly. Remember, in JKR's mind, there are > 1000 students at Hogwarts. That's a lot of compartments. > > So, Tonks knows a spell that can find people who are concealed or > she used her "auror skills" to search a train quickly. I think that > counts as skill either way. It may not be a heroic battle against > Bellatrix, but it is validation of her as an auror. Magpie: Yeah, but however much of a skill it is or not, it's just Tonks showing up in the compartment and finding Harry. I'm not claiming here that she's an incompetent, I'm just saying that what the character does mostly in the story is chase after Lupin, mope, lose her powers, get pregnant, trip over things and die. Acting out Tonks' scenes in canon wouldn't be very satisfying if you were looking for scenes of people being a great auror. Tonks' finding Harry on the train just is not cool no matter how she did it. Even if there really were 1000 students, which there never are in canon, whatever JKR said in that one interview. (She also said "Oh dear, maths" in an interview, and that's more proved in canon.) She never seems to actually be "picturing" 1000 students when she writes the books, since the class sizes and scenes always work out to showing far fewer students (40 students to a year). Alla: I do not remember Tonks' doing any super impressive fits of magic either, but I do not remember ANY aurors showing any particularly impressive fits of magic either, so I think it is more because not much attention devoted to show how good Aurors as institution are, not because Tonks specifically is not portrayed as impressive Auror. Magpie: Yup, I agree. The Aurors are mostly background characters to begin with. As a character Tonks' storyline is about Lupin. The Order is lame as a group, imo. The main thing they do is twice ferry Harry from Grimmauld Place to the Weasleys. If particularly exciting stuff was done by Tonks there we didn't see it (just as if anything particularly exciting happened when Lupin was spying on the werewolves we didn't see it). Alla: I mean, I am just wondering which auror in the book you see as portrayed particularly skilled? Magpie: Nobody. For Tonks in particular if I think about what she did in canon it would be to be that she was introduced to be quirky in a kind of clunky way (changing her hair color, making funny noses, saying 'wotcher' and tripping over things) and then becoming that girl who pined after Lupin and lost her powers, got married, pregnant, had a baby and then got dead. It's like describing Dudley as a character who's defined by being a great boxer and so showing all the things we imagine a good boxer would be. Aleta: Snape does engage in (intended) animal cruelty to Neville's toad. When he doses Trevor with Neville's shrinking potion, Snape fully intends to kill the toad. It is only because Hermione helped Neville that he had a proper potion, and Trevor was reduced to a tadpole which Snape could restore to adulthood. Snape would have been happy to kill the toad just out of spite. Magpie: I don't agree, actually. Snape can already see that the Potion looks right when he feeds it to Trevor, and he's known for his constant threats to poison things and people with no cases of his actually poisoning anybody. It was mean to frighten Neville this way, but I never thought there was any actual danger that he'd kill his toad. That's what Snape's all about--he can hate people without crossing that line. It's Moody who's the teacher truly dangerous to Neville. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 23:40:37 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:40:37 -0000 Subject: Tonks as Auror and aurors in general WAS: Re: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181036 Alla wrote: > > I do not remember Tonks' doing any super impressive fits of magic either, but I do not remember ANY aurors showing any particularly impressive fits of magic either I do see the mention of them doing their job though from time to time, even if it is not done a la Twins' fireworks. I mean, really, what is impressive magic? The magic that gets the job done, yes? > > But I do see Tonks doing her job - as Yolanda said she is in the guard who brings Harry to Grimmauld place. I do not remember any of them showing spectacular magic there, they just did their job in delivering Harry, no? > Apparently Tonks was good enough dueller to knock Lucius Malfoy out in the battle of MoM before she was hurt. After she throws a stunner > Lucius dear is not heard from anymore. Sounds impressive enough to > me. Carol responds: Right. OoP Tonks seems to be as skilled as anyone else in battle. (I do wonder what that green-lit curse Bella threw at her was; it sent her to St. Mungo's but it couldn't have been an SK or she'd have died two year sooner.) Also, her finding Harry on the train involves a nice bit of deduction: she goes to the compartment with the pulled blinds, and she knows that he has an Invisibility Cloak, so, IIRC, she feels around for him instead of merely looking. Granted, that's not an impressive feat of magic, but it shows intelligence and the ability to reason. She easily fixes Harry's broken nose with an Episkey spell (which raises the question of why neither DD nor Bagman got their noses fixed), and she jumps without hesitation from a moving train--again, not a feat of magic, but a nice demonstration of courage and athleticism. (*I coudn't have done it, even when I was her age, but, then, I'd be a complete disaster as an Auror.) And this is Tonks when she's depressed over Lupin. We *do* see her using her impressive (but admittedly, inherited rather than acquired) abilities as a Metamorphmagus twice, once as she escorts Harry to Platform 9 3/4 (I wonder, though, whether her uncle by marriage, Lucius Malfoy, recognized her as he recognized his cousin-in-law, Sirius) and once as she escorts HRH onto the Knight bus. (She takes on the appearance of two different older women; I can find the descriptions if anyone wants them.) She deals rather forcefully with Stan Shunpike, who calls her, IIRC, "that bossy woman." We don't actually see her doing her job as an Auror, but we know that she got at least an E on five NEWTs, including Potions (and would have needed an O on her OWL to get into Snape's NEWT Potions class in the first place). We know that she can fly (on a broom, I mean) and cast an effective Stunning spell. And she passed all those Auror tests despite being "dead clumsy." It's a shame that this likeable character, who is not a bit domestic, having never mastered "these householdy spells," had to become so woebegone in HBP, complete with a "weak" Patronus (yes, it was Snape's jibe, but there might have been some truth to it), and a shame that she didn't live to raise her baby boy. (I can just see them together: her hair pink and his turquoise). Partly because of the limitations of Harry's pov and partly because of the needs of JKR's plot in DH, which required the main characters to be isolated and Tonks to be killed by her family-tree-pruning Aunt Bellatrix, we didn't get to see much of this promising character. Carol, who likes to think that Tonks would have been both a great Auror and a happy wife and mother had she lived > Moody is so skilled that he spent a year in the trunk. Carol: LOL! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 27 23:45:28 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:45:28 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman/Different Values of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181037 Magpie: Yup, I agree. The Aurors are mostly background characters to begin with. As a character Tonks' storyline is about Lupin. The Order is lame as a group, imo. The main thing they do is twice ferry Harry from Grimmauld Place to the Weasleys. If particularly exciting stuff was done by Tonks there we didn't see it (just as if anything particularly exciting happened when Lupin was spying on the werewolves we didn't see it). Alla: Well, you asked for examples of her skill as auror and I mentioned one thing that she did in battle of MoM that I consider impressive and exciting - she took a high level DE out of commision, don't you agree? I wish I could take credit for this, but Zara, who is so well versed in canon, remembered that part. Tonks is shown as skilled one here, I think. I mean, again, it is good old stunner, but it worked, no? It is more than others are shown doing I think. And of course she is shown as being depressed in HBP, etc. I just think that for the background character, her skill is hinted with this example. Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 00:04:13 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:04:13 -0000 Subject: House-Elves yet again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181038 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > We're getting nowhere in the House-Elves are/are not slaves debate, > and those of us who feel that the House-Elf ownership is sufficiently > different from human slavery to justify the use of that loaded term > (All in favor of slavery, say "Aye!") are also getting nowhere. Call > it a draw as neither side seems likely to persuade the other to give > an inch. > > Let me start from scratch. a_svirn: I know it's like going in circles, but still. Carol: 6) Not all House-Elves are abused by their masters, and even abuse is not sufficient reason in the minds of most House-Elves to desire "freedom." 10) An unhappy House-Elf can work against his master in surprisingly effective ways, either making his life miserable or aiding his enemies or both. 11) A happy House-Elf (one who is well-treated and has a master he respects) performs well and efficiently, wanting no other reward than an occasional compliment ("Good service!") Treat your House- Elf well and he'll be happy, giving you good service, which will make *you* happy. Treat him badly, and your house will be dirty because the Elf will find a way to subvert you. a_svirn: If you substitute the word House-Elf for the word (human) slave your argument is still valid. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if the advice such as this can be found in some household manuals for slave-owners, or, say, in sermons of some well-meaning ministers. Carol: 4) While House-Elves can do other tasks, such as fetching Mundungus Fletcher, they not surprisingly prefer housework and are exceptionally good at it. (My guess is that their magic is specially adapted to the Elf equivalent of "householdy spells" and to enabling them to keep out of sight ("the mark of a good House-Elf is that he's not seen," as somebody says). a_svirn: Oh, I don't know. I think Kreacher rather liked his assignment. He certainly was eager to participate in the interrogation. Carol: 7) "Freedom," at least in the books, is accomplished through clothes, not legislation. a_svirn: Yes. It is slavery that is accomplished through legislation. Carol: Nevertheless, his "freedom" is not all that wonderful, as it amounts to homelessness and unemployment for a year, and if it weren't for Dumbledore, both he and Winky would have remained outcasts (or starved to death). No one wants a disgraced House-Elf, especially one who "wants paying." a_svirn: And what exactly it tells us? That Dobby and Winky are natural slaves? I'd say it tells us that the wizarding society and culture leaves much to be desired. The example of Winky and Dobby shows that naturally, organically or whatever they are perfectly able to be free ? their faculties, magical abilities and even their desire to serve are all intact. What they need is some goodwill of wizards. And the only wizard that has the required quality is Dumbledore. Well it's just too bad, isn't it? Not all is well in the WW after all, something is definitely rotten. Carol: 8) The enchantment that binds a House-Elf to serve a particular family can be broken by giving the House-Elf clothes, but the enchantment that forces a House-Elf to punish himself if he disobeys his master (or even his paid employer, as we see with Dobby and Umbridge, remains in place). They are, it seems, two separate enchantments, and it's the second, the self-punishment enchantment, that seems more horrific to Hermione, our spokeswoman for the Elf cause. a_svirn: Yes indeed, it seemed to discompose Hermione. Elves themselves, however, are not fussed about it. They want to serve the masters of their choice ? and that's the really big issue with them ? but as for self-punishment, they don't complain about it. Well, Dobby mentioned it, but only as a minor issue. Kreacher certainly saw nothing whatsoever wrong with it. Carol: 9) SPEW is unworkable because neither Elves nor Wizards want anything to do with it. a_svirn: SPEW is unworkable because it irresponsible and dishonest. And that very good word that Mike used ? self-congratulatory. Or, if we take Hermione's tender age into account, immature, sneaky and self- congratulatory. We haven't seen real mature and responsible attempt to do something for elves in canon. Carol: So, supposing that the self-punishment enchantment, which no one on this list or in the books sees as a good thing, is lifted, with penalties instituted for abusing a House-Elf. Is that sufficient? (I think it is,) More important, how are the Elves supposed to be "freed" if the only way to do it is by giving them all clothes? (Legislation can't undo an enchantment.) a_svirn: I don't understand why you think that one of these two separate enchantments can be lifted while the other cannot. There is nothing said in canon about possibility of undoing either. I think it is more realistic that the binding enchantment can be undone. Since it involves cultural artifacts (cloths) it can't be a part of elvish natural constitution. If wizards abolish slavery legally they would have to undo the binding enchantment. As for self-punishment it just might be part of their make-up after all ? since they continue to practice it even after the bond is broken. Carol: I know that some people think that the House-Elves are supposed to have "freedom of choice" to find a new master (they're not, let's face it, going to open a business or become professors). a_svirn: I am continually puzzled by that persistent reference to businessmen and professors. Are these two categories of people the only ones who have freedom of choice? And why the quotation mark? Are you signaling unusual usage? Carol: But where are they supposed to find these new masters? An employment agency run by the MoM? a_svirn: Why not? Carol: And what's the guarantee that they'd find a suitable employer? a_svirn: Oh, I don't think it would be such a problem. If wizards contrive to be a little less prejudiced, I think they can come to terms with the liberated elves. Especially since the terms are still likely to be very favorable for wizards. a_svirn. From aletamosquito at gmail.com Sun Jan 27 23:42:24 2008 From: aletamosquito at gmail.com (Aleta) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:42:24 -0000 Subject: Numbers of Students (WAS: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181039 > > Yolanda: > J.K. Rowling confirmed in an online chat that there are about > 1,000 students at Hogwarts. [Online Chat with J.K. Rowling, > Scholastic, 16 October 2000.] > It has been debated, however that was what JKR pictures in her > mind. I don't think there are enough teachers at Hogwarts, either. Each subject only has one teacher, and core subjects, like transfiguration and charms are taught to people of all seven years and all four houses. Even with some of them combined, such as Slytherin and Griffindor having Potions together, how are they able to fit all of those classes in the schedule of one teacher? Aleta From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 28 00:18:11 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:18:11 -0000 Subject: House elves WAS: realistic resolutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181040 > > >>Pippin: > > > > But since Harry and Hermione know as well as anyone that worms > > always turn, why assume that they aren't doing their best to treat > > house-elves as house-elves want to be treated? > > Betsy Hp: > I've never seen Harry or Hermione experience a worm turning. Those > they stomp on either stay down or die. Pippin: Let's see, Kreacher and Draco both turned on Harry after being oppressed. They didn't end the book dead, and both had more status and contentment at the end than at any time previously. Harry himself was a worm who considered vengeance against Dudley and abandoned it. But he certainly knew how good it felt to have it within his grasp. Other worms are legion in canon, including Wormtail who turns first against the patronizing James and then against Voldemort, not to mention the ultimate example, Snape. Betsy Hp: But as we've seen, if Harry needs to abuse his house-elf, > he'll do it. And Hermione will (maybe) shake her head. Pippin: Why assume something that's contradicted by canon? HBP!Harry abused his house-elf. DH!Harry whose need was even greater, did not do so. That change was the result of everything that went before, including Hermione and Dumbledore's activism. Head-shaking did not work, practical advice that helped Harry and Kreacher devise a win-win solution, did. > > > >>Pippin: > > That all is well with the WW, as with the Hogwarts Express, not > > because it has arrived at its destination but because reasonable > > progress is being made? > > Betsy Hp: > I've seen nothing to suggest progress is why. Why assume something > of which we've seen no sign? I honestly don't think we're supposed to > see an issue with house-elf slavery. Pippin: If there wasn't an issue, JKR wouldn't have called it slavery . She wouldn't have had Harry honor Dobby for taking up the burden of being a free elf. She wouldn't have had Hermione kiss Ron for realizing the Hogwarts elves shouldn't be ordered into battle. She wouldn't have made us feel sorry for Kreacher and wish that he could be freed. She wouldn't have made her heroine a champion of house-elves who was planning to make that her career, one who, as the book closed, had finally figured out how to make her fellow wizards listen to her. Betsy Hp Dobby's life was ultimately > useless (he was just a mad fool) and Harry betrayed him in the end. > Pippin: Okay, I'll bite. What do you mean, Harry betrayed him, and why do you think it was useless of Dobby to protect Harry with his life? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 00:21:36 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:21:36 -0000 Subject: Different values of Snape/ Re: House elves In-Reply-To: <3591e0870801271507h76357802o229fd5f512ef3291@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181042 a_svirn: > > He hasn't actually *done* anything to Neville. He called him names and bullied him, yes. > Aleta: > Snape does engage in (intended) animal cruelty to Neville's toad. When he doses Trevor with Neville's shrinking potion, Snape fully intends to kill the toad. It is only because Hermione helped Neville that he had a proper potion, and Trevor was reduced to a tadpole which Snape could restore to adulthood. Snape would have been happy to kill the toad just out of spite. > Carol responds: Fully intends to kill the toad? Happy to kill it out of spite? Can you cite canon, please? He only says that he'll feed the shrinking Solution to the toad to test it at the end of the class. Only after he has seen Hermione helping Neville and is perfectly aware that the potion is green (as it should be) and not orange does he suggest that "If he has managed to produce a Shrinking solution, it will shrink to a tadpole. If, as I don't doubt, he has done it wrong, his toad is likely to be poisoned" (PoA Am. ed, 128). It seems to me obvious that Snape would have made no such remark had he not known that the potion was made correctly. Nor do I think that the potion, even if made correctly, would have killed Trevor. Can you imagine the reaction of all the Gryffindor students, complaining to their parents and Dumbledore? Snape is at wit's end in terms of getting the cauldron-melting Neville to follow directions. After telling Neville exactly the steps he has gotten wrong, Snape asks, "What do I have to do to make you understand?" (126). So he resorts to stating that "at the end of this lesson [after Neville has had time to repair his mistakes] we will feed a few drops of this potion to your toad. *Perhaps that will encourage you to do it perfectly.*" (Not a word about *poisoning the toad*.) Instead of having the desired effect (Neville repairing his own potion), this threat results in Neville desperately getting help from Hermione (for which Snape, having told her not to help him, understandably deducts points). But just as Snape has an antidote to the Shrinking Solution in the pocket of his robes (128), as he always had an antidote to the potion of the day (as we see from the very first Potions lesson), he also has access to bezoars and antidotes of all sorts in his "stores." So in the unlikely event that the toad had been poisoned (which Snape never actually said would happen, only that it's "likely" when he knows full well that it isn't), he would have been able to cure it as easily as he restored it to its normal self after trickling a few drops of the Shrinking Solution down its throat. May I ask what you think would have been accomplished by Snape's actually poisoning the toad? Surely, that would not have accomplished his stated goal of getting Neville to understand the subject and follow directions. So, surprisingly, I agree with a_svirn on this one. He is bullying Neville, certainly, trying to scare him into following directions. But fully intending to poison Neville's toad? I think we need to remember who Snape is, the master of innuendo and half truths, as we see with particular clarity in "Spinner's End." From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 00:30:58 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:30:58 -0000 Subject: Tonks as Auror and aurors in general WAS: Re: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181043 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Also, her finding Harry on the train involves a nice bit of deduction: > she goes to the compartment with the pulled blinds, and she knows that > he has an Invisibility Cloak, so, IIRC, she feels around for him > instead of merely looking. zanooda: I wonder why she didn't use "homenum revelio". I want to add that there is something strange about "homenum revelio", IMO. JKR said in one of her post-DH interviews that DD used it to "see" Harry when he (Harry) was under the Invisibility Cloak (like in Hagrid's cabin in CoS, for instance). But, if it was that easy, why no one else ever uses this spell to discover Harry in his Cloak, even when they suspect he is there? When Harry got stuck on the stairs in GoF and Snape guessed he was there, why did he try to find the boy by stretching out his hands and walking around "like a blind man" instead of casting "homenum revelio"? I doubt Snape doesn't know the spell. Why didn't he use it in "The Sacking of Severus Snape", when he suspected that Harry was with McGonagall, wearing the Cloak? Why didn't Yaxley and Dolohov used it in the forest, when they heard Harry moving under the Cloak? And, if it's so easy to discover a person under the Cloak using a simple spell, why did Xeno Lovegood said that the Cloak gives "constant and impenetrable concealment, no matter what spells are cast at it"? zanooda, not really asking any questions here, but just wondering aloud ... From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 00:31:12 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:31:12 -0000 Subject: Sirius as a dog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181044 > > > Jayne: > > > Did he not know before what Sirius was. I thought he knew at > > > the end of PoA when Sirius tansformed to fight Lupin who was > > > a werewolf at this time. > > > zgirnius: > > In the book, he is unconscious after being hit by the Trio's > > Stunning spells. > > Jayne: > > Did he not find out in school though? Mike: I'd rather doubt it. The Marauders kept their secret from Dumbledore for sure, so I'd guess that Severus didn't know else he would have exposed them, wouldn't you think? Besides, it appears Severus knew that Lupin was a werewolf and that the rest of the Marauders were up to some hijinks with him when he transformed. If he knew Wormatail, Padfoot and Prongs were animagi, he would know that was the reason they were safe to cavort with werewolf!Lupin. But it doesn't appear that he knew that, which is why he was in danger when I headed down the tunnel to the SS. And why James had to save him. It looks to me as if Sev took the attitude of, "If they can do it, I can do it", without knowing *why* they could do it. The why being, they were animagi. I still think James only saved Sev from becoming a werewolf. But who knows, if Lupin's werewolf mind has a flicker of memory what his human mind thinks of this git, maybe he would've killed him. In the arena of unintended consequences, James really did give up his life by saving Severus that night. After all, there wouldn't have been an eavesdropper to bring the prophesy to LV if Sev had died at the jaws of Lupin that night. Mike, who wonders if Harry gave the Marauders Map to one of his kids and hopes he gave it to Lily From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 28 00:36:08 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:36:08 -0000 Subject: Sirius as a dog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181045 > > Jayne: > > > > Did he not find out in school though? > > Mike: > I'd rather doubt it. The Marauders kept their secret from Dumbledore > for sure, so I'd guess that Severus didn't know else he would have > exposed them, wouldn't you think? Potioncat: It appears that Snape doesn't learn of the Marauders' animagi tricks until the end of GoF, when Sirius transforms in front of him. He may have heard about it at the end of PoA, but I don't think he believed it. Mike, I think Severus would have exposed them, unless he made one of his promises to DD. He seems to keep those. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 00:56:58 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:56:58 -0000 Subject: Sirius as a dog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181046 > Potioncat: > It appears that Snape doesn't learn of the Marauders' animagi > tricks until the end of GoF, when Sirius transforms in front > of him. He may have heard about it at the end of PoA, but I > don't think he believed it. Goddlefrood: The relevant canon is in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169043 Severus certainly overheard the conversation about the Marauders learning to transform from the lips of two of them in The Shrieking Shack. It's possible he didn't believe it, but it's also possible he did and actually kept his mouth shut for his own nefarious purposes. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 01:43:16 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:43:16 -0000 Subject: House-Elves yet again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181047 > Carol: > 4) While House-Elves can do other tasks, such as fetching Mundungus > Fletcher, they not surprisingly prefer housework and are exceptionally good at it. (My guess is that their magic is specially adapted to the Elf equivalent of "householdy spells" and to enabling them to keep out of sight ("the mark of a good House-Elf is that he's not seen," as somebody says). > > a_svirn: > Oh, I don't know. I think Kreacher rather liked his assignment. He > certainly was eager to participate in the interrogation. Carol: True. I'm sure he loved that assignment, as I said in another post. After all, he held Mundungus in the greatest contempt ("Smells like a drain and a thief to boot," or something like that). And without question, he enjoyed hitting Mundungus on the head with a saucepan (not actually part of his assignment, but helping Master Harry deal with the scum who dared to steal the Black family's treasures). But what I meant was that Elves in general, seem (not surprisingly, given their name) to prefer housework (cooking, cleaning) to other kinds of work. We never see them doing the equivalent of manual labor, magically digging ditches or picking crops, for example. They are HOUSE ELVES, and their place seems to be, pardon the phrase, in the home (counting Hogwarts as a home away from home for hundreds of students and some twenty or so staff members). Notice that Kreacher, after cleaning himself up, immediately starts cooking and cleaning. That seems to be what House-Elves do most naturally and enjoy doing, not for themselves but for Wizards. > > Carol: > 7) "Freedom," at least in the books, is accomplished through clothes, not legislation. > > a_svirn: > Yes. It is slavery that is accomplished through legislation. Carol: Um, sorry. I don't know what you mean. House-Elves are recognized as property (Kreacher can be inherited along with the house) but that seems to be merely recognizing the (natural or at least pre-existing) state of affairs. There's no law on the books that we know of stating that all House-Elves will be slaves or even that all House-Elves must belong to a Wizard. Somehow, in the distant past, House-Elves started serving Wizards, whether voluntarily or otherwise, and somehow they became magically associated with those old families and houses, so that they were to all intents and purposes part of the house. The only way to get rid of them was to give them clothes. (Of course, they could be ordered to accompany a family member or go elsewhere, for example, to Hogwarts, but that doesn't make them any less associated with the family home. I'm sure that Kreacher sees 12 GP as his home; Hogwarts is only, in HBP, the place he's been ordered to stay by Harry, who is also there, and in DH, a refuge from the DEs who invaded 12 GP. Yaxley evidently saw it when he grabbed Hermione to follow her. So Kreacher escaped to a place he'd been previously ordered to go to await further orders. Or that's how I read it.) Anyway, I've strayed as usual from my point, which is that the law recognizes House-Elves as property, but I doubt that they became property ("slaves," to use your word) through legislation. There's some sort of enchantment that can only be undone by giving a House-Elf clothes, and it seems to be part of the nature of House-Elves. (This is fantasy/folklore we're dealing with, and we can't expect a logical, rational, legalistic explanation for the existence of House-Elfs or their apparently natural and inevitable desire to serve Wizards. > Carol earlier: > Nevertheless, his "freedom"is not all that wonderful, as it amounts to homelessness and unemployment for a year, and if it weren't for Dumbledore, both he and Winky would have remained outcasts (or starved to death). No one wants a disgraced House-Elf, especially one who "wants paying." > > a_svirn: > And what exactly it tells us? That Dobby and Winky are natural slaves? Carol: Did I say that? What I'm saying, dear a_svirn, is that "freedom" for House-Elves, at least in the unenlightened WW we see in the books, is not a desirable state. They can't just start up a business like Wizards. They have to look for domestic work *for* Wizards because that is what House-Elves do and all that they do and what they want to do. They have no alternative except to remain homeless wanderers and perhaps starve. I am saying that they naturally *serve* Wizards, but not that they are natural slaves. That's your word, remember? I almost feel that you're perversely misunderstanding my argument and twisting my words. a_svirn: I'd say it tells us that the wizarding society and culture leaves much to be desired. The example of Winky and Dobby shows that naturally, organically their faculties, magical abilities and even their desire to serve are all intact. What they need is some goodwill of wizards. Carol: A point with which I agree completely (except that Winky's faculties are somewhat impaired by butterbeer and grief later on). I have, in fact, been arguing that House-Elves need to understand House-Elf psychology and treat them as they want to be treated for this entire thread. I snipped the part about being "free" because "freedom" for House-elves amounts to being unemployed and (virtually) unemployable in the current state of the WW. a_svirn: And the only wizard that has the required quality is Dumbledore. Well it's just too bad, isn't it? Not all is well in the WW after all, something is definitely rotten. Carol: And yet if their masters had treated them fairly and not imposed "freedom" in the one case and abuse in the other, they would not have been in that position. *If* House-Elf servitude is "natural" in the sense of having been established by some enchantment that can only be undone by giving them clothes--not through making it illegal, which, IMO, would be pointless and futile--then the answer lies in making sure that their masters treat them well. And legislation *could* accomplish that, just as parents can be compelled to stop abusing their children. (The MoM would probably have some means of magically detecting Elf abuse.) But "freeing" all the House-Elves by giving them clothes (the only way it can be done, per canon) would result in a lot of miserable House-Elves. Just ask Winky, who didn't want to be "freed," or the Hogwarts House-Elves, who rightly rejected Hermione's high-handed attempts to free them. > Carol eralier: > 8) The enchantment that binds a House-Elf to serve a particular family can be broken by giving the House-Elf clothes, but the enchantment that forces a House-Elf to punish himself if he disobeys his master (or even his paid employer, as we see with Dobby and Umbridge, remains in place). They are, it seems, two separate enchantments, and it's the second, the self-punishment enchantment, that seems more horrific to Hermione, our spokeswoman for the Elf cause. > > a_svirn: > Yes indeed, it seemed to discompose Hermione. Elves themselves, however, are not fussed about it. They want to serve the masters of their choice ? and that's the really big issue with them ? but as for self-punishment, they don't complain about it. Well, Dobby mentioned it, but only as a minor issue. Kreacher certainly saw nothing whatsoever wrong with it. > >Carol: A "minor issue" that they hit themselves on the head with lamps and bottles? Okay, Now I see that we're poles apart. What I see as horrific, you consider minor. What you call "slavery" and therefore evil, I consider to be the natural state of affairs in the WW--House-Elves serving Wizards--with a few complications, such as abuse of the system by the Malfoys et al.--easily resolved by what used to be called a raised consciousness. As for the Elves being "fussed" about serving the masters of their choice, they still want to serve, and are not at all "fussed" about being owned. What they want is to be treated well: not abused, like Dobby, not "freed, like Winky, and not scorned and insulted, like Kreacher. I'm not going to go around and around with those arguments again, but show me one single Elf other than Dobby who says that he wants to be "free." > Carol: > 9) SPEW is unworkable because neither Elves nor Wizards want anything to do with it. > > a_svirn: > SPEW is unworkable because it irresponsible and dishonest. And that very good word that Mike used ? self-congratulatory. Or, if we take Hermione's tender age into account, immature, sneaky and self- congratulatory. We haven't seen real mature and responsible attempt to do something for elves in canon. Carol: Well, at least we agree that SPEW is aptly named and that Hermione was taking matters into her own hands (a Hermionish trait) without consulting the Elves). As for a mature and responsible attempt to do something for Elves in canon, I suspect that the mature Hermione of the epilogue (who now understands the psychology of House-Elves and has the sense to concentrate on the self-abuse instead of trying to impose unwanted "freedom" on the House-Elves) will take care of that. There are several hints to that effect in canon: her speech to Harry in "Kreacher's Tale," her words to Scrimgeour about wanting to do some good in the world, and her words to Griphook expressing concern for all the oppressed groups, including House-Elves (and the poor ickle goblins, but you and I probably don't agree about them, either.) > > Carol: > So, supposing that the self-punishment enchantment, which no one on this list or in the books sees as a good thing, is lifted, with penalties instituted for abusing a House-Elf. Is that sufficient? (I > think it is,) > > More important, how are the Elves supposed to be "freed" if the only way to do it is by giving them all clothes? (Legislation can't undo an enchantment.) > > a_svirn: > I don't understand why you think that one of these two separate > enchantments can be lifted while the other cannot. Carol: Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. Let me say again: Legislation cannot break either enchantment. You can't undo magic with a law. You can make a spell, such Sectumsempra, illegal, but you can't undo it with a law. You need Snape's elaborate countercurse. Making House-Elf ownership illegal is not going to undo the enchantment that binds them to a particular house or family. Only the counterenchantment, giving them clothes, can do that. And requiring all House-Elf owners to give their Elves clothes would, IMO, result in great psychological harm to the Elves, and in homelessness and joblessness if they were forced to seek new owners. You said yourself that the WW is no fit place for unemployed House-Elves. Legislation to compel them to treat their Elves compassionately would be a much better solurion. The other enchantment, the one forcing House-Elves to punish themselves, must also have a countercurse or countercharm of some sort. We just don't know what it is. It can't be undone by giving clothes, as we see with Dobby, nor can it be undone by legislation. I trust Hermione to research the matter and see if she can find its origins and perhaps develop a countercurse (whether it would have to be administered individually or could be done en masse, I have no idea). If it can't be undone, then the humane masters law, combined with mandatory House-Elf Studies classes at Hogwarts to make students aware of the problem, will have to do. At any rate, we have canon to show that individual House-Elves can be "freed" through clothes, the only countercharm available. We don't know what the other countercharm is, or whether there is one. The solution to the self-punishment problem depends on what caused the problem, if you understand me. > a_svirn: > I am continually puzzled by that persistent reference to businessmen > and professors. Are these two categories of people the only ones who > have freedom of choice? Carol: Of course not. I am simply citing two typical Wizarding career choices, others being MoM employees and Healers at St. Mungos, in which it appears that House-Elves, not being human, have no interest (and for which, possibly, they're not suited by nature). I am talking about choices that Wizards make that House-Elves either cannot or simply do not make. Make sense now? a_svirn: And why the quotation mark? Are you signaling unusual usage? Carol: Yes, as a matter of fact. "Freedom of choice" is not normally used to mean a choice of masters or even a choice of professions. If you look up the phrase on Google, I suspect it will lead you to websites supporting a woman's right to abortion. Carol, who is much more interested in examining the WW as it is depicted than in imposing her personal views of how it ought to be onto it From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 01:58:32 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:58:32 -0000 Subject: Different values of Snape/ Re: House elves In-Reply-To: <3591e0870801271507h76357802o229fd5f512ef3291@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181048 > Aleta: > Snape does engage in (intended) animal cruelty to Neville's > toad. When he doses Trevor with Neville's shrinking potion, > Snape fully intends to kill the toad. It is only because > Hermione helped Neville that he had a proper potion, and > Trevor was reduced to a tadpole which Snape could restore > to adulthood. Snape would have been happy to kill the toad > just out of spite. zgirnius: That is your opinion. However, Snape is shown in the books as very knowledgeable in Potions. He can loook at a potion, see it has the qrong color and consistency, and know not only that it has been made wrong, but at which step the student went wrong and how. (The scene you mention contains an example - Snape knows what Neville has dene wrong in making his potion. There are others.) It follows, that when Snape fed Neville's potion to the toad, he knew it was a properly made Shrinking Solution, so he knew all he was going to be doing is demonstrating the effect of the correctly made potion. We have no way to know, other that our own guesses, what Snape would have done if Neville had not, by whatever means, fixed the potion. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 02:08:25 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:08:25 -0000 Subject: Sirius as a dog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181049 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > > Potioncat: > > It appears that Snape doesn't learn of the Marauders' animagi > > tricks until the end of GoF, when Sirius transforms in front > > of him. He may have heard about it at the end of PoA, but I > > don't think he believed it. > > Goddlefrood: > > The relevant canon is in: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169043 > > Severus certainly overheard the conversation about the > Marauders learning to transform from the lips of two of > them in The Shrieking Shack. It's possible he didn't > believe it, but it's also possible he did and actually > kept his mouth shut for his own nefarious purposes. > Carol: Possibly, you linked to the wrong post since the canon you cite seems only to relate to Lupin's transformations. Snape did hear Lupin stating that the other three had become Animagi and something about a rat, but he believed, along with the entire WW, that Sirius Black had murdered Wormtail, so even if he was in a fit mental state to put two and two together, he would have rejected the idea that Scabbers was Wormtail even more vehemently than HRH did (until the end of GoF when he hears Barty Crouch's references to Wormtail and then finds out by returning to Voldemort on DD's orders that Wormtail is Peter Pettigrew. As for Sirius being a dog, Snape didn't hear what kinds of animals the Marauders turned into, so he would have been shocked to see the black dog turn into Sirius Black. By that time, he may have known or deduced part of the story (for example, that DD had authorized Hermione and Harry to use the Time Turner to aid in Black's escape), but I don't think he knew the full story (or believed what he'd heard in the Shrieking Shack) until he saw Black transform and Pettigrew alive. As for "nefarious purposes," he thought that Sirius Black had betrayed the Potters to their deaths and that he had come to Hogwarts to murder Harry, with the aid of his friend Lupin, who was helping him into the castle. (Of course, there was also that little matter of the so-called Prank; he had just overheard Black saying that it would have served him right to be bitten by Lupin.) So, altogether, given the combination of information and misinformation at his disposal and his emotional state at the moment, it's no wonder that he misinterpreted or disbelieved what he heard. Harry, as we know, has a tendency to do much the same thing, believing the worst of Snape as he believed the worst of Black and Lupin. Carol, who thought that DH cleared Snape of all charges with regard to "nefarious purposes," and noting that he conjured stretchers for the unconscious HRH and Black despite having been insulted and knocked out From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 02:16:58 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:16:58 -0000 Subject: Different values of Snape/ Re: House elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181050 > zgirnius: > That is your opinion. However, Snape is shown in the books as very > knowledgeable in Potions. He can loook at a potion, see it has the > qrong color and consistency, and know not only that it has been made > wrong, but at which step the student went wrong and how. (The scene > you mention contains an example - Snape knows what Neville has dene > wrong in making his potion. There are others.) Alla: Ooooooo. Snape. Is he or is he not that is the question. LOLOLOLOL. Boy would you believe it feels like a new topic to me, almost among elves and elves and elves. :) But yeah, sure he is shown as very knowledgeable in Potions and he still feels a need to say what he said. Zara: > It follows, that when Snape fed Neville's potion to the toad, he knew > it was a properly made Shrinking Solution, so he knew all he was > going to be doing is demonstrating the effect of the correctly made > potion. Alla: And he still felt a need to say that he will poison the toad. > We have no way to know, other that our own guesses, what Snape would > have done if Neville had not, by whatever means, fixed the potion. > Alla: No, we do not, I agree with you completely. It is unprovable either way. What is provable to me is that Neville is scared out of his mind. What is provable to me that the teacher felt it is possible to threaten student with the death of his beloved pet. I find it despicable as always, but yeah, I know that WW does not seem to be. Carol: May I ask what you think would have been accomplished by Snape's actually poisoning the toad? Surely, that would not have accomplished his stated goal of getting Neville to understand the subject and follow directions. Alla: My answer to this is and always was that I have no idea what would have been accomplished. In fact, I would say that nothing rational would have been accomplished at all, BUT of course I do not consider Snape as exercising any amount of rational thought towards Neville especially. He after all takes a point from Harry for NOT helping Neville and from Hermione for helping Neville. I think it shows that he does not give a flying fig about Neville's performance and just wants to see him scared and upset. So, no surprise here when I say that I think Snape behaves here as irrational sadist. Yeah, strictly my own personal opinion which I know WW does not agree with me on. From aletamosquito at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 01:39:38 2008 From: aletamosquito at gmail.com (Aleta) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:39:38 -0000 Subject: Different values of Snape/ Re: House elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181051 Carol: > Fully intends to kill the toad? Happy to kill it out of spite? Can you > cite canon, please? Aleta: Perhaps I should have made clearer that I was stating my interpretation of the events in the book. Carol: > He only says that he'll feed the shrinking Solution to the toad to > test it at the end of the class. Only after he has seen Hermione > helping Neville and is perfectly aware that the potion is green (as it > should be) and not orange does he suggest that "If he has managed to > produce a Shrinking solution, it will shrink to a tadpole. If, as I > don't doubt, he has done it wrong, his toad is likely to be poisoned" > (PoA Am. ed, 128). Aleta: Actually, he (as you state later) threatens Neville with feeding the potion to the toad earlier in the class period, when the potion is in fact the wrong color. Carol: > It seems to me obvious that Snape would have made no such remark had > he not known that the potion was made correctly. Nor do I think that > the potion, even if made correctly, would have killed Trevor. Can you > imagine the reaction of all the Gryffindor students, complaining to > their parents and Dumbledore? Aleta: I think you meant to say "even if made incorrectly". :) Perhaps not. None of us knows for certain. Carol: Instead of having the desired effect (Neville repairing his > own potion), this threat results in Neville desperately getting help > from Hermione (for which Snape, having told her not to help him, > understandably deducts points). Aleta: He doesn't actually tell her not to help Neville. What he says is "I don't remember asking you to show off, Miss Granger" (page 126, PoA, Amer. ed.). This could of course be interpreted to mean that he doesn't want her to help Neville, but what she does is coach Neville with instructions; she does not do it for him. Carol: > But just as Snape has an antidote to the Shrinking Solution in the > pocket of his robes (128), as he always had an antidote to the potion > of the day (as we see from the very first Potions lesson), he also has > access to bezoars and antidotes of all sorts in his "stores." So in > the unlikely event that the toad had been poisoned (which Snape never > actually said would happen, only that it's "likely" when he knows full > well that it isn't), he would have been able to cure it as easily as > he restored it to its normal self after trickling a few drops of the > Shrinking Solution down its throat. Aleta: That's a good point. Carol: > May I ask what you think would have been accomplished by Snape's > actually poisoning the toad? Surely, that would not have accomplished > his stated goal of getting Neville to understand the subject and > follow directions. Aleta: I don't. I think Snape was being nasty, as usual, to a Gryffindor student having trouble. Crabbe and Goyle are reportedly very stupid, and yet we never hear of Snapes's threatening (with or without legitimacy to the threatened actions) them or other students of Slytherin. -Aleta From angellima at xtra.co.nz Mon Jan 28 02:35:14 2008 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:35:14 +1300 Subject: House-Elves yet again References: <1201479149.2520.92735.m48@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000501c86156$69d35b40$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 181052 HP (Harry Potter) for GrownupsCarol: We're getting nowhere in the House-Elves are/are not slaves debate, and those of us who feel that the House-Elf ownership is sufficiently different from human slavery to justify the use of that loaded term (All in favor of slavery, say "Aye!") are also getting nowhere. Call it a draw as neither side seems likely to persuade the other to give an inch. Let me start from scratch. Here are the points that seem to me indisputable, and I'm not going to support them with canon yet again as they've all been covered in the previous discussion Angel: In moments like these, one realises "it is not the spoon that bends, it is yourself". I do so love that line :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 02:47:18 2008 From: cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com (Cassandra Wladyslava) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:47:18 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: PS/SS chapters 13-15 post DH look In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181053 > zgirnius: > The practice Snape assigns to Harry in OotP, as homework for the > Occlumency lessons, and Harry never does, is, every night, to clear > his mind before falling asleep. If a person is sufficiently tired, > this may occur naturally if a person just falls into bed and sleeps > like a log, rather than lying in bed wondering about the events of > the day, etc. Alla: Could you clarify please what you meant here? I mean I definitely thought about Occlumency lessons, but relaxation supposed to be sort of opposite to intense Quidditch like training, no? Or are you saying that had Harry been exercising physically he would not have need to close his mind, that would have occurred automatically maybe? zgirnius: And it is this aftermath, I think, that has Harry experiencing fewer dreams in PS/SS. Instead of thinking about Umbridge, and the visions, and the Occlumency lessons and how he hates them, and being ignored by Dumbledore, and whatever other problems Harry ahs in OotP, before he finally falls asleep, PS/SS Harry just falls into bed, thinks "great to finally be in bed" and sleeps like a log. This latter is much closer to clearing his mind of all thoughts and feelings than the former. > Cassie: Also, I don't think the connection between LV and Harry was as strong during Harry's first through third year. It probably got stronger as LV got stronger. As I recall (been a while since I've read the book), the nightmare Harry had in PS/SS was just that - a nightmare. He didn't actually start having visions until he was in his fourth year. And the visions were different from nightmares. The Occulmency lessons were never meant to prevent dreams - just to block the connection between Harry and LV. Remember also that he would share LV's thoughts/moments/experiences when LV was experiencing powerful emotions and when he [Harry] was "most relaxed and vulnerable - when [he was] asleep, for instance." (Snape. OoTP pg 531) The "homework" Snape gave Harry wasn't in order to get him to relax so he could sleep better, but to empty his *mind* of emotion and make it blank and calm. It's difficult to make your mind a COMPLETE blank. You have to concentrate a great deal, but at the same time let go and relax your mind. It takes practice. You have to push out all the thoughts that come into your head without thinking about pushing out those thoughts. You just let them go. I think Occulmency works by NOT thinking. If you have a memory that you want to block from a Legilimens, you don't concentrate on blocking that memory because then you will be thinking about that memory. It will be in the forefront of your mind and the Legilimens will have access to it, no matter how much you don't want them to see it. But if you can "erase" the memory by making your mind a blank, then the Legilimens cannot see it or at least has a more difficult time seeing it. Another way to look at it is LV's ability to tell if someone is lying to him. I can imagine a Death Eater, who knows LV knows Legilimency, thinking "please don't let him see *this*!". But because he would be trying to block out the memory he would also be thinking about it. LV probably would not be able to see the memory if the DE just didn't think about it at all. There is a problem I have with Legilimency. The mind is not a tape recorder. Most people cannot, for example, remember specific features of a person's face. This is a common problem when people are trying to identify suspects in a crime. Also, the brain tends to fill things in. Not only that, but it is possible to convince yourself of facts so welll that that's what you see in the memory. Like Harry's memory of "Dudley riding a new red bicycle." (OotP pg 534). He remembers the bike as being red and is so convinced of this that he sees a red bike in his mind's eye. But the bike may have, in fact, been blue. You can also convince yourself that other physical or verbal details that didn't really occur. Heck, you can convince yourself of events that didn't really occur. Does Legilimency take this into account? I suppose the answer to that might go hand in hand with a skilled Legilimens being about to decifer what he/she sees.... ~Cassie - Who has often wondered if Voldemort ever had a sudden powerful surge of teen angst or a "special feeling" when Harry thought about Cho or Ginny.~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 28 03:07:22 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:07:22 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts classes/House Elves/Remus/Tonks/Secret Sorting Hat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181054 Aceworker/DA Jones wrote in : << For instance in Transfiguration they are taught that human transfiguration is prohibited. >> When the kids in GoF are planning for Harry to do the underwater Task, Hermione said: <<"Of course, the ideal solution would be for you to Transfigure yourself into a submarine or something," she said. "If only we'd done human Transfiguration already! But I don't think we start that until sixth year, and it can go badly wrong if you don't know what you're doing ...">> Human Transfiguration being taught in sixth year doesn't sound to me like Human Transfiguration being forbidden. Were you thinking of the Unforgiveable Curses, also explained in GoF? Aceworker/DA Jones wrote in : << There doesn't seem to be much need for household spells. As most witches and wizards eventually acquire house-elves to do all that for them anyway. >> CoS says: <<"I don't know whether the Malfoys own a house-elf" said harry. "Well, whoever owns him will be an old wizarding family, and they'll be rich," said Fred. "Yeah, Mum's always wishing we had a house-elf to do the ironing," said George. "But all we've got is a lousy old ghoul in the attic and gnomes all over the garden. House-elves come with big old manors and castles and places like that; you wouldn't catch one in our house . . ." >> That doesn't sound to me like most witches and wizards eventually acquire a House Elf. Pippin quote in : << "I have had it *all* tested for posion," he assured Harry, pouring most of the first bottle into one of Hagrid's bucket-sized mugs and handing it to Hagrid. "Had a house-elf taste every bottle after what happened to your poor friend Rupert." >> That's what Hermione said after hearing Kreachy's story: it's perfectly normal for wizards who aren't even Death Eaters to test potions on House Elves. However, there is a wizarding world inconsistency here. Humans can test poisons on dogs because dogs are abundant and relatively inexpensive. House Elf are abundant at Hogwarts, but canon doesn't suggest they're abundant anywhere else ... Kreachy appears to have been the *only* House Elf belonging to the toujours pur Blacks at the time, so if LV's green potion had killed him, the Blacks would have had to do all the housework themselves. Voldemort wouldn't care about the Blacks' housework, but Who would risk killing their own only servant? Jayne wrote in : << my favorite character in the series is killed off at the end. That is Remus Lupin. >> Remus is my favorite character, too, and Rowling did a lot worse to him in DH than killing him. We have this allegedly happy ending to HBP, where all Remus's surviving friends and acquaintances bully him into marrying Tonks even tho' he doesn't want to. Then he spends DH running around being miserable and hysterical because of the marriage and the child. Dying in battle probably was a relief for him, as it was the only honorable way for him to escape those burdens. I don't know why he didn't want to marry Tonks, who seemed quite likeable in OoP to me. Of course he loves her only as a sister or a daughter, but romance is not necessary for marriage. I'm sure there's something about living with her that totally gets on his nerves. I'm a total Sirius/Remus shipper, but merely not being Sirius shouldn't be *that* annoying. (To me, a person who can put up with Sirius can put up with a lot.) Maybe she spends all her off-page time babbling about her favorite boy-bands until he's out of his mind with boredom. I don't remember if canon ever presented Remus as a neat freak, but if he could put up with Sirius being a slob, he could put up with Tonks beings a slob. Maybe it has something to do with her clumsiness, altho' it seems to me that even if she breaks treasured mementos from his past, objects that he loves more than he loves her, he can fix them with Reparo. Maybe it's that he has a psychological need to spend a lot of time alone, when he can complain and be bad-tempered as much as he wants without witnesses, but one'd think he'd get that while she's at work -- was she fired from the Aurors for marrying him, I mean back before the Dark Side took over the Ministry? Dave Hardenbrook wrote in : << So I'd like to take this opportunity to propose a new Theory Club called "R-NUDGE" ("Rumors of Nymphadora's Untimely Death are 'Greatly Exaggerated'"). I think there is hope because: 1. Tonks does *not* appear in the Resurrection Stone scene. 2. Harry didn't see *how* she was killed, so there's no proof she was. (Maybe she took the Draught of Living Death?) 3. No reference is made to Teddy's upbringing (aside from his frequent visits to his godparents) in the Epilogue. Note that I'm not suggesting any of the above as direct evidence of Dora still living, only as evidence of a possible loophole for ardent Tonks fans like me. >> I'll join your theory, not as a Tonks fan, but because I think it's a terrible mess for Tonks to spend her eternal afterlife moping over Remus while Remus is happy with his friends. But if she stays alive, that's a load off Remus's afterlife. I mean, if she stays alive, she has time to 'get over it'. She wouldn't be much use to her baby or anyone else moping like she did in HBP, but maybe her baby will cheer her up some. Then she maybe could go back to work as an Auror and be useful to the wizarding community and eventually fall in love and marry again. Zanooda wrote in : << I could never understand how Ron could *not* know about the Sorting Hat and the Sorting ceremony. Come on! This is so unrealistic! The boy is from an old wizarding family, where everyone went to Hogwarts, and he has no idea how the new students are Sorted? >> I went to a college which had a lot of Traditions, including one which was a surprise for the freshmen. The other years prepared this surprise, but it was very important to keep it secret so it would be a surprise. For decades, not only students and teachers, but also the alumnae, kept it secret. So I never doubted that Hogswarts could keep the Sorting Hat secret from incoming students. From cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 02:59:43 2008 From: cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com (Cassandra Wladyslava) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:59:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181055 Yolanda: I admit checking the train would make common sense, however if I remember correctly, she found an invisible boy pretty fast. Either she cast a spell or she knows how to search a train long enough to carry all of Hogwarts quickly. Remember, in JKR's mind, there are 1000 students at Hogwarts. That's a lot of compartments. So, Tonks knows a spell that can find people who are concealed or she used her "auror skills" to search a train quickly. I think that counts as skill either way. It may not be a heroic battle against Bellatrix, but it is validation of her as an auror. Cassie: I have to disagree with you here, Yolanda. >From HBP page 158: "How did you find me?" "I noticed you hadn't left the train and I know you had that cloak. I thought you might be hiding for some reason. When I saw the blinds were drawn down on that compartment I thought I'd check." So it wasn't a spell she used. It was just common sense. ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 03:52:33 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:52:33 -0000 Subject: Sirius as a dog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181056 > > Goddlefrood: > > The relevant canon is in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169043 > Carol: > Possibly, you linked to the wrong post since the canon you cite > seems only to relate to Lupin's transformations. Goddlefrood from pre history (in post referred): Snape appears within the room from under the IC on p. 262 after much information has been revealed, including, but not limited to the Marauders becoming Animagi. Goddlefrood now: The exact passage is rather long, but the transformations of *all* the Marauders was discussed, albeit perhaps no big black dog was mentioned. I give Snape credit for being able to work out for himself what was going on and what animagus form Sirius took before it was confirmed in GoF. > Carol, who thought that DH cleared Snape of all charges with > regard to "nefarious purposes," Goddlefrood: Well, it did insofar as his ultimate loyalties were concerned, but I think it's something upon which you could agree to say that Sirius Black and Severus Snape lost no love for each other. As far as Sirius was concerned anything went for Snape, he'd certainly never do any favours for Sirius, IMNSVHO. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 04:27:29 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:27:29 -0000 Subject: Sirius as a dog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181057 > Goddlefrood: > Well, it did insofar as his ultimate loyalties were concerned, > but I think it's something upon which you could agree to say > that Sirius Black and Severus Snape lost no love for each other. > As far as Sirius was concerned anything went for Snape, he'd > certainly never do any favours for Sirius, IMNSVHO. zgirnius: I can't argue about Sirius. Severus, however, did. > OotP, "The Lost Prophecy": > "'You see, when you gave Professor Snape that cryptic warning, he realised that you had had a vision of Sirius trapped in the bowels of the Department of Mysteries. He, like you, attempted to contact Sirius at once. I should explain that members of the Order of the Phoenix have more reliable methods of communicating than the fire in Dolores Umbridge's office. Professor Snape found that Sirius was alive and safe in Grimmauld Place." From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 04:34:37 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:34:37 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts classes/House Elves/Remus/Tonks/Secret Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181058 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > I went to a college which had a lot of Traditions, including one which > was a surprise for the freshmen. The other years prepared this > surprise, but it was very important to keep it secret so it would be a > surprise. For decades, not only students and teachers, but also the > alumnae, kept it secret. So I never doubted that Hogswarts could keep > the Sorting Hat secret from incoming students. If so, it's a pity Harry was such a blabbermouth and told his kids about the Sorting Hat :-), because they (or at least Albus) definitely know all about it! zanooda From yvaine28 at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 04:41:28 2008 From: yvaine28 at gmail.com (meann ortiz) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:41:28 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts classes/House Elves/Remus/Tonks/Secret Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d7223330801272041g5032499do1498525b6701cf8e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 181059 --- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > I went to a college which had a lot of Traditions, including one which > was a surprise for the freshmen. The other years prepared this > surprise, but it was very important to keep it secret so it would be a > surprise. For decades, not only students and teachers, but also the > alumnae, kept it secret. So I never doubted that Hogswarts could keep > the Sorting Hat secret from incoming students. --- zanooda replied: If so, it's a pity Harry was such a blabbermouth and told his kids about the Sorting Hat :-), because they (or at least Albus) definitely know all about it! My reply: And it seems Fred and George kept the secret better (and so did the other Weasley brothers) because Ron didn't seem to know anything. He thought they had to battle trolls. =) But then, that's just Fred and George in character. Still, they didn't spill the beans. =) Meann [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jan 28 04:45:18 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:45:18 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman/Secret Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181060 > Magpie: > Yup, I agree. The Aurors are mostly background characters to begin > with. As a character Tonks' storyline is about Lupin. The Order is lame > as a group, imo. The main thing they do is twice ferry Harry from > Grimmauld Place to the Weasleys. If particularly exciting stuff was > done by Tonks there we didn't see it (just as if anything particularly > exciting happened when Lupin was spying on the werewolves we didn't see > it). > > > > > Alla: > > Well, you asked for examples of her skill as auror and I mentioned one > thing that she did in battle of MoM that I consider impressive and > exciting - she took a high level DE out of commision, don't you agree? Magpie: I don't remember asking for examples of her skill as an auror.:-) It's not that I doubt she has the skills aurors have. I know she's with the other Order members in their scenes in OotP. She's part of the fight in the MoM. I'm just saying that Tonks is mostly important for her Lupin storyline. I've no doubt she can take part in a fight-- and everybody can throwing stunning spells so I wouldn't doubt she could. But her main job as a character is her relationship with Lupin. Her most obvious power is used for entertainment purposes so we can see she has it and note when it's gone and wonder why. Alla: > And of course she is shown as being depressed in HBP, etc. I just > think that for the background character, her skill is hinted with this > example. Magpie: We've got a bunch of aurors who can do all the things one has to do to be an auror. Tonks is the one who changes her hair color and her nose for entertainment before losing her powers to despair when her boyfriend leaves her. Then she gets married, has a baby and dies. If somebody claimed that Tonks was incompetent at work I'd say there's no evidence of that, but somebody gave me that character as being about being a strong female Auror I'd think that was disappointing. Catlady: > I went to a college which had a lot of Traditions, including one which > was a surprise for the freshmen. The other years prepared this > surprise, but it was very important to keep it secret so it would be a > surprise. For decades, not only students and teachers, but also the > alumnae, kept it secret. So I never doubted that Hogswarts could keep > the Sorting Hat secret from incoming students. zanooda: If so, it's a pity Harry was such a blabbermouth and told his kids about the Sorting Hat :-), because they (or at least Albus) definitely know all about it! Magpie: In Harry's defense, maybe he knew it was more important that he and his friends know nothing about the Hat than his kids, because we readers were supposed to be in suspense with Harry and now we already know about the Hat. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 05:38:45 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:38:45 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman/Secret Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181061 > > Alla: > > > > Well, you asked for examples of her skill as auror and I mentioned > one > > thing that she did in battle of MoM that I consider impressive and > > exciting - she took a high level DE out of commision, don't you > agree? > > Magpie: > I don't remember asking for examples of her skill as an auror.:-) > It's not that I doubt she has the skills aurors have. I know she's > with the other Order members in their scenes in OotP. She's part of > the fight in the MoM. I'm just saying that Tonks is mostly important > for her Lupin storyline. Alla: I definitely took this sentence as challenging Tonks' skill as auror. "Magpie: I didn't disagree that she *was* an auror, I disagreed that I ever saw her doing anything to show she was a particularly good auror." If you do not disagree that she is a good auror, I really have nothing to argue with. She IS important for her Lupin's storyline, I just thought you were disagreeing that she was competent auror. I am not sure if I agree that she is MOSTLY important for Lupin's storyline simply because whole OOP she is well, not doing any romance with Lupin, but sure in the next two books it is important. Alla From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 08:29:33 2008 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:29:33 -0800 Subject: BDSM - House Elves Message-ID: <700201d40801280029g34e69f3cndbdf1894ed47401a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 181062 House Elves desire being bound, submitting their will to the will of another (in this case, a human). The desire is evident as Winky wails when told about being given clothes, as Kreacher seeks to please the portrait of Mrs. Black, and as the Hogwarts' House Elves shun Dobby. It has been argued that House Elves are slaves, by me but mostly by others. The comparison to slavery of the American South is easy to jump to. Slave: One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household. However, I have changed my view of House Elves as Slaves, sort of... not because of the many, well articulated arguments presented by others, but because of the advice columnist Dan Savage. It is time to consider another definition and rethink our view of House Elves. Slave: The bottom or sub (submissive) in a BDSM relationship. For those of you only ever licking vanilla, there are another 30 flavors. BDSM stands for Bondage/Discipline,Dominate/Submissive,Sado/Masochism. In the BDSM community, there is what's known as a 'slave contract'. The long and short of it is that the slave has veto power for certain demands/commands of the master. Unfortunately, the House Elves didn't think this up and so their psychological need for being bound and submissive was abused by unscrupulous masters. House Elves are bottoms who need to be topped. They want to be bound (collared) to a master. But not just any master, a master who is compassionate. This is evident by Kreacher's reversal from HBP's denial/refusal of Master Harry in the Dursley living room to DH's laud of his Master as he led the charge of House Elf brigade. House Elves are slaves, but they want to be slaves under safe and sane conditions: kind of like, but exactly like, slaves in the BDSM community. Kemper, putting GU in HPfGU.... You can check out Dan Savage's column 'Savage Love', his podcasts, and a link to archives here: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove From rvink7 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 28 09:00:20 2008 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:00:20 -0000 Subject: Tonks as Auror and aurors in general WAS: Re: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181063 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > >> Apparently Tonks was good enough dueller to knock Lucius Malfoy out > in the battle of MoM before she was hurt. After she throws a stunner > Lucius dear is not heard from anymore. Sounds impressive enough to > me. > > Renee: Maybe she did take him out, but not for long, apparently. Toward the end of the fight, Lucius Malfoy is up and about again, making an unsuccesful atttempt to take the prophecy from Harry (this happens after Bellatrix has defeated Tonks). So either Tonks's stunner missed Malfoy, or it was a rather weak one. Either way, it doesn't support the idea that she was a particularly good Auror. I don't doubt Rowling intended her to be competent. The problem, for me - a recurrent problem in the series - is that she told us but did very little to show it to us. Renee From rvink7 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 28 09:11:03 2008 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:11:03 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts classes/House Elves/Remus/Tonks/Secret Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181064 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" > wrote: > > > I went to a college which had a lot of Traditions, including one which > > was a surprise for the freshmen. The other years prepared this > > surprise, but it was very important to keep it secret so it would be a > > surprise. For decades, not only students and teachers, but also the > > alumnae, kept it secret. So I never doubted that Hogswarts could keep > > the Sorting Hat secret from incoming students. > Zanooda: > If so, it's a pity Harry was such a blabbermouth and told his kids > about the Sorting Hat :-), because they (or at least Albus) definitely > know all about it! > Renee: Harry "betraying" the Sorting Hat's secret may be the first step towards abolishing it altogether and doing away with the House nonsense. I hope that's the reason why JKR put this conversation in the Epilogue. From angellima at xtra.co.nz Mon Jan 28 09:43:34 2008 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:43:34 +1300 Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/Werew Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181065 A blast from the past. The new year upon us is the perfect opportunity for new habits. REPLYing would be one of those. Alla, please forgive the tardy reply, I only just found this lol, hopefully you need not gauge the dungeons of memory too far to remember lol Angel: And while we're on the subject...Dumbledore killed others too not just Severus, maybe not as many as Voldemort, maybe not as directly and cruelly as Voldemort, but kill as effectively as Voldemort - yes. Alla: For the purpose of this question I am really not interested in hearing whom Dumbledore **maybe** killed, whom people **think** Dumbledore killed, etc. I read the above statement as absolute statement of fact. I mean, this statement did not have any - I think Dumbledore killed, or Dumbledore maybe killed, or it is my opinion that Dumbledore killed, right? So I take it you know for a fact that Dumbledore killed people. I really want to know whom Dumbledore killed for a **fact**. Angel: Take your pick. Murders Ariana, Sirius, Gryndel, Severus, (the owl), Moody...etc... Physical injuries the trio - PS, etc, etc, Katie in HBP, Ron in HBP, Rosmerta in HBP, etc... As I said earlier he may not have pointed his wand at these people and shot green flames but by his manipulations he was as much responsible for their demise as the actual doer of the killings. Truth be told my statement was a throwaway lol. But now that I think of it, Dumbledore fuelled the dissidence between the houses. It is a matter of which thread one chooses to follow and how to interpret the web. My current mood with HP leads me to Dumbledore being responsible for these hurts, aches and pains as well as murders by his manipulation - both his actions and inactions. The episode in the cave (HBP) where he pleads to let others go in exchange for him ... their suffering being his fault... etc was explained away by Harry in DH as Albus referring to the fight which caused Ariana's death. In retrospect, I strongly doubt it. He was responsible for much more. Dumbledore was against anyone using Harry as long as they weren't Albus Dumbledore. Why he and Scrimmy couldn't work together on a plan to deter the uprising I cannot comprehend except that Dumbledore would have had to share his perch. He had no qualms about putting Harry or anyone else in danger as long as he vetted the dangers because he alone knew best. At Sirius' death Dumbledore admitted he was at fault, for making Harry believe there was ever a reason to go to the MoM. Had Harry known what Voldemort was after, not one of them would have gone there, yet in the subsequent books Dumbledore reveled still in secrecy and the dangerous notion of infallibility. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Jan 28 12:31:29 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:31:29 -0700 Subject: Secret Sorting Hat References: Message-ID: <002001c861a9$b60a6140$6501a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 181066 > zanooda: > If so, it's a pity Harry was such a blabbermouth and told his kids > about the Sorting Hat :-), because they (or at least Albus) definitely > know all about it! > > Magpie: > In Harry's defense, maybe he knew it was more important that he and > his friends know nothing about the Hat than his kids, because we > readers were supposed to be in suspense with Harry and now we already > know about the Hat. > > -m Shelley: I doubt that every student standing with Harry that first day would have been completely ignorant of the sorting hat. I bet you that Draco knew. Problem is, they really wouldn't have had time to spread the news, between those that knew, and those that didn't, together on the train of what was about to happen, so as a large group, there still would be a lot of suspense. Those that knew of the hat could still have been told that it "gets inside your head" as a test, and that might be scary enough. So even if Albus knew that the hat read your thoughts, still that could be twisted or misunderstood to make that test one to be one that new students would still get nervous over. Harry didn't know, but I bet Hermione did, having read up on Hogwarts in preparation for coming, and that knowledge did her a load of good with her white knuckles and uptight attitude. So I disagree that everyone had to "not tell" of the test for 1st years, because evening knowing part still would produce jitters. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 28 12:56:42 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:56:42 -0000 Subject: Different values of Snape/ Re: House elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181067 > > Aleta: Perhaps I should have made clearer that I was stating my > interpretation of the events in the book. Potioncat: Welcome, welcome. You've hit the boards running! Got our collective blood up already! Now we have something to complete with the Elves-as- slaves-tread....maybe. > Aleta: Actually, he (as you state later) threatens Neville with > feeding the potion to the toad earlier in the class period, when the > potion is in fact the wrong color. Potioncat: Nasty git, isn't he? > > Carol: > > It seems to me obvious that Snape would have made no such remark had > > he not known that the potion was made correctly. Nor do I think that > > the potion, even if made correctly, would have killed Trevor. Can you > > imagine the reaction of all the Gryffindor students, complaining to > > their parents and Dumbledore? Potioncat: Agreed, of course. But I'm not so sure anyone would have complained, nor that Snape would have cared very much had they done so. Actually, it's not likely he would have been sacked at any rate. DD needed him. Remember the days when many of us thought Snape had a purpose behind his treatment of Harry and Neville? After DH, we know that he's been protecting Harry all along. We know he dislikes Harry. The only explanation I have for Neville, is that Snape has no patience for careless errors. Although it's hard to believe Neville was the only one who ever messed up. I wonder if JKR wrote it this way as a sort of misdirection? Neville was the other possible Chosen One. > > Aleta: He doesn't actually tell her not to help Neville. What he says > is "I don't remember asking you to show off, Miss Granger" (page 126, > PoA, Amer. ed.). Potioncat: Snape took points away from Harry on the very first day for "not" helping a house-mate. As if Harry could have. > > > Aleta: I don't. I think Snape was being nasty, as usual, to a > Gryffindor student having trouble. Crabbe and Goyle are reportedly > very stupid, and yet we never hear of Snapes's threatening (with or > without legitimacy to the threatened actions) them or other students > of Slytherin. Potioncat: As for Crabbe and Goyle--we don't see how he treats them at all. (We Snape-fans like to point out what we don't see Snape doing, it makes him look better.) But we do see him giving them detention in HBP for the quality of their work. We also see him being sarcastic to Crabbe- or-Goyle in Umbridge's office in OoP. There's another thread that I'm planning to reply to---I think Mike started it---about patronage. The more I think about it, the more it seems to play into how wizards treat each other. Snape's two father figures would have been Tobias and Slughorn. Snape seems to have combined Tobias's negativity with Slughorn's favortism and come up with his own brand of patrnonage. Potioncat would lile to say that she is very happy the houseelf/slave thread is active, at least something is keeping us talking. But, damn, there goes that Disney song again... From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 13:14:29 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:14:29 -0000 Subject: House-Elves yet again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181068 > > Carol: > > 7) "Freedom," at least in the books, is accomplished through > clothes, not legislation. > > > > a_svirn: > > Yes. It is slavery that is accomplished through legislation. > > Carol: > Um, sorry. I don't know what you mean. House-Elves are recognized as > property (Kreacher can be inherited along with the house) but that > seems to be merely recognizing the (natural or at least pre- existing) > state of affairs. There's no law on the books that we know of stating > that all House-Elves will be slaves or even that all House-Elves must > belong to a Wizard. a_svirn: Oh yes, we do. Kreacher was inherited legally, wasn't he? Of course we don't know exactly what sorts of laws regulate wizarding inheritance, we are not treated to the equity versus common law legal rigmarole, thank Merlin, but we know the essentials. Elves are legally the wizading property, to be used, abused and give away at will. We don't know whether devolution of property is the only way of giving them away, but I don't see why they cannot be traded. There is nothing in canon to contradict it. So yes, there are laws in the WW stating that elves are wizarding property. No way round that one. > Carol: Somehow, in the distant past, House-Elves started > serving Wizards, whether voluntarily or otherwise, and somehow they > became magically associated with those old families and houses, a_svirn: We know how. They were enslaved. That's how it is called in canon. By an elf. > Carol: so > that they were to all intents and purposes part of the house. The only > way to get rid of them was to give them clothes. a_svirn: In a way they are of course. I suppose you can say that slaves to all intents and purposes are a part of plantations. As for clothes, it is the way to get rid of them, as you very rightly said, but not to liberate them. You'd need to change both the laws and the attitude of wizards for elves to be really free. > Carol: (Of course, they > could be ordered to accompany a family member or go elsewhere, for > example, to Hogwarts, but that doesn't make them any less associated > with the family home. I'm sure that Kreacher sees 12 GP as his home; a_svirn: The beauty of English language as Betsy said, as well as any other language, is that words have so many meaning and connotations. Kreacher is associated with his family home? Hard to argue with that. But his association meant nothing for Harry when he sent him to Hogwarts. Kreacher regarded No.12 as his home and the Blacks as his family, and we saw how much his associations and personal allegiances helped him to withstand the power of the hateful bond. It didn't help. He is not bound to the house; he is not bound to the family. He is bound to the wizard that owns him. > Carol: > Anyway, I've strayed as usual from my point, which is that the law > recognizes House-Elves as property, but I doubt that they became > property ("slaves," to use your word) through legislation. a_svirn: Very probably they first become the property of wizards de facto, and then the situation was legitimised. It has been in fact the case with many a law. I don't see how it makes the situation any more palatable. > Carol: There's > some sort of enchantment that can only be undone by giving a House- Elf > clothes, and it seems to be part of the nature of House-Elves. a_svirn: No, this particular enchantment does not seem to be a part of their nature to me. It involves cultural artefacts. Moreover, it involves *wizarding* cultural artefacts. Cultural artefacts are not and cannot be in any way a part of nature. Much less wizarding cultural artefacts can be a part of elvish nature. It is obviously an enchantment that was put on elves by wizards. > > Carol earlier: > > Nevertheless, his "freedom"is not all that wonderful, as it amounts > to homelessness and unemployment for a year, and if it weren't for > Dumbledore, both he and Winky would have remained outcasts (or starved > to death). No one wants a disgraced House-Elf, especially one who > "wants paying." > > > > a_svirn: > > And what exactly it tells us? That Dobby and Winky are natural slaves? > > Carol: > Did I say that? > What I'm saying, dear a_svirn, is that "freedom" for House-Elves, at > least in the unenlightened WW we see in the books, is not a desirable > state. a_svirn: It is not, however, what follows from your example. What follows from your example is that even when they do desire freedom, like Dobby, wizards make it impossible for them to enjoy it. > Carol: They can't just start up a business like Wizards. They have to > look for domestic work *for* Wizards because that is what House- Elves > do and all that they do and what they want to do. They have no > alternative except to remain homeless wanderers and perhaps starve. > > I am saying that they naturally *serve* Wizards, but not that they are > natural slaves. That's your word, remember? I almost feel that you're > perversely misunderstanding my argument and twisting my words. a_svirn: There's no need to throw accusations or spin conspiracy theories. I quite agree with you that they naturally want to serve. What I don't understand is how it is translated into wanting to be owned. Much less wanting to be owned against their will. I've been asking this very question many a time and yet to receive an answer. I almost feel that you purposefully ignore it. > a_svirn: > And the only wizard that has the required quality is Dumbledore. Well > it's just too bad, isn't it? Not all is well in the WW after all, > something is definitely rotten. > > Carol: > And yet if their masters had treated them fairly and not imposed > "freedom" in the one case and abuse in the other, they would not have > been in that position. *If* House-Elf servitude is "natural" in the > sense of having been established by some enchantment that can only be > undone by giving them clothes a_svirn: For the life of me I cannot understand how all this can mean "natural" (and yes, I do signal unusual usage). > Carol eralier: > > 8) The enchantment that binds a House-Elf to serve a particular > family can be broken by giving the House-Elf clothes, but the > enchantment that forces a House-Elf to punish himself if he disobeys > his master (or even his paid employer, as we see with Dobby and > Umbridge, remains in place). They are, it seems, two separate > enchantments, and it's the second, the self-punishment enchantment, > that seems more horrific to Hermione, our spokeswoman for the Elf cause. > > > > a_svirn: > > Yes indeed, it seemed to discompose Hermione. Elves themselves, > however, are not fussed about it. They want to serve the masters of > their choice ? and that's the really big issue with them ? but as for > self-punishment, they don't complain about it. Well, Dobby mentioned > it, but only as a minor issue. Kreacher certainly saw nothing > whatsoever wrong with it. > > > >Carol: > A "minor issue" that they hit themselves on the head with lamps and > bottles? Okay, Now I see that we're poles apart. What I see as > horrific, you consider minor. a_svirn: I see it as horrific too. You, however, were the one, who argued in favour of listening to what is important to elves and against imposing our human values on them. They are not particularly unhappy about self-punishment. They are unhappy about being bound against their will. Let's listen to elves, shall we? > Carol: > As for the Elves being "fussed" about serving the masters of their > choice, they still want to serve, and are not at all "fussed" about > being owned. a_svirn: Yes, but I was talking about elves serving masters who are emphatically not their choice. So you are answering the question I didn't ask. > > Carol: > > So, supposing that the self-punishment enchantment, which no one on > this list or in the books sees as a good thing, is lifted, with > penalties instituted for abusing a House-Elf. Is that sufficient? (I > > think it is,) > > > > More important, how are the Elves supposed to be "freed" if the only > way to do it is by giving them all clothes? (Legislation can't undo an > enchantment.) > > > > a_svirn: > > I don't understand why you think that one of these two separate > > enchantments can be lifted while the other cannot. > > Carol: > Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. Let me say again: > Legislation cannot break either enchantment. You can't undo magic with > a law. You can make a spell, such Sectumsempra, illegal, but you can't > undo it with a law. You need Snape's elaborate countercurse. a_svirn: Yes, but if Harry knows that he faces Azkaban if he uses it he'll think twice before do something like that. > Carol: > Making House-Elf ownership illegal is not going to undo the > enchantment that binds them to a particular house or family. Only the > counterenchantment, giving them clothes, can do that. And requiring > all House-Elf owners to give their Elves clothes would, IMO, result in > great psychological harm to the Elves, a_svirn: Of course, it would. Giving cloths is not a counterenchantment, it is the way of sacking the elf. The enchantment must be lifted altogether. > Carol: and in homelessness and > joblessness if they were forced to seek new owners. a_svirn: Not, if there were more wizards of good will. > Carol: You said yourself > that the WW is no fit place for unemployed House-Elves. Legislation to > compel them to treat their Elves compassionately would be a much > better solurion. a_svirn: No it wouldn't. For one thing it is impossible to implement, since bound elves cannot inform on their masters, for another a free person is a better solution than a person owned. Better for both parties. > Carol: > The other enchantment, the one forcing House-Elves to punish > themselves, must also have a countercurse or countercharm of some > sort. We just don't know what it is. It can't be undone by giving > clothes, as we see with Dobby, nor can it be undone by legislation. a_svirn: We don't even know that it is an enchantment. It might be part of their nature, might it not? Of course I am all for countering it if it's possible. > > a_svirn: > > I am continually puzzled by that persistent reference to businessmen > > and professors. Are these two categories of people the only ones who > > have freedom of choice? > > Carol: > Of course not. I am simply citing two typical Wizarding career > choices, others being MoM employees and Healers at St. Mungos, in > which it appears that House-Elves, not being human, have no interest > (and for which, possibly, they're not suited by nature). I am talking > about choices that Wizards make that House-Elves either cannot or > simply do not make. Make sense now? a_svirn: No, actually. I mean of course, they wouldn't want to make the same career choices as wizards, not being wizards themselves. I just don't see what it has to do with anything. > > a_svirn: > And why the quotation mark? Are you signaling unusual usage? > > Carol: > Yes, as a matter of fact. "Freedom of choice" is not normally used to > mean a choice of masters or even a choice of professions. If you look > up the phrase on Google, I suspect it will lead you to websites > supporting a woman's right to abortion. > > Carol, who is much more interested in examining the WW as it is > depicted than in imposing her personal views of how it ought to be onto it > a_svirn: Well, there is no problem with women rights in the WW that I know of. There is, however a problem with elvish rights, so I really don't understand what it is so unusual in my usage of the phrase. a_svirn. From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Jan 28 13:27:26 2008 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:27:26 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House-Elves yet again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <479DD83E.10406@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 181069 a_svirn wrote: >>> Carol: >>> 7) "Freedom," at least in the books, is accomplished through >> clothes, not legislation. >>> a_svirn: >>> Yes. It is slavery that is accomplished through legislation. >> Carol: >> Um, sorry. I don't know what you mean. House-Elves are recognized as >> property (Kreacher can be inherited along with the house) but that >> seems to be merely recognizing the (natural or at least pre- > existing) >> state of affairs. There's no law on the books that we know of > stating >> that all House-Elves will be slaves or even that all House-Elves > must >> belong to a Wizard. > > a_svirn: > Oh yes, we do. Kreacher was inherited legally, wasn't he? Of course > we don't know exactly what sorts of laws regulate wizarding > inheritance, we are not treated to the equity versus common law legal > rigmarole, thank Merlin, but we know the essentials. Random832: But we don't. That there is legal recognition that they are property does not mean that it was laws that made them property - that is, there is no indication that laws were passed making them property, in the same way as, say, laws were passed forbidding Goblins to use wands. For an analogy, say I own an X-Box 360. It is legally recognized that an X-Box 360 is property, it can be inherited, etc. But this is not a law that has been passed by a particular legislature, there is no "X-Boxes are considered property act of 1986"; rather, the fact that movable inanimate objects are considered property is something that has existed in human society for a hundred thousand years. We know that the laws _recognize_ them as property, but that's not the same as the laws, or any action by wizards, being _why_ they are property, which is what a lot of people here seem to be claiming. >> Carol: > Somehow, in the distant past, House-Elves started >> serving Wizards, whether voluntarily or otherwise, and somehow they >> became magically associated with those old families and houses, > > a_svirn: > We know how. They were enslaved. That's how it is called in canon. By > an elf. Random832: That doesn't answer the fundamental question of *HOW* they were enslaved. Whether it was their own choice or something forced by wizards. From falkeli at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 10:05:33 2008 From: falkeli at yahoo.com (hp_fan_2008) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:05:33 -0000 Subject: Tonks as Auror and aurors in general WAS: Re: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181070 zanooda: > I wonder why she[Tonks] didn't use "homenum revelio". I want to add that there is something strange about "homenum revelio", IMO. JKR said in one of her post-DH interviews that DD used it to "see" Harry when he (Harry) was under the Invisibility Cloak (like in Hagrid's cabin in CoS, for instance). But, if it was that easy, why no one else ever uses this spell to discover Harry in his Cloak, even when they suspect he is there? hp_fan_2008: Maybe it reveals that there is someone under a cloak, but not who it is, or the precise location. In GoF, when Harry was stuck on the stairs, Snape guessed that Harry was there, and "homenum revelio" would have confirmed that someone was, although no more than that. It would not have allowed him to know the precise location - probably no more than he could have guessed by the golden egg and the map. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 15:10:43 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:10:43 -0000 Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed?/ Tonks as auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181071 > Alla: >> So I take it you know for a fact that Dumbledore killed people. I > really want to know whom Dumbledore killed for a **fact**. > > > Angel: > Take your pick. > > Murders > Ariana, Sirius, Gryndel, Severus, (the owl), Moody...etc... > > Physical injuries > the trio - PS, etc, etc, Katie in HBP, Ron in HBP, Rosmerta in HBP, etc... > > As I said earlier he may not have pointed his wand at these people and shot green flames but by his manipulations he was as much responsible for their demise as the actual doer of the killings. Alla: Thanks. That's one broad definition of murder though in my opinion. I am pretty sure that if you ask Dumbledore himself he would agree that he is partially responsible for the deaths of people you mentioned. By the way, by this definition I take it you believe that Snape is also responsible for the deaths of Potters? But I can only assign him some percentage of liability here and not very high. I am especially wondering how you make Dumbledore responsible for the death of Grindelwald ( or is Gryndel somebody else I do not remember?) I am sorry, I am really not sure here. Moody and Sirius, sure, I would give Dumbledore some part of blame, but I still doubt that he wanted them to die. May I take that you do not have examples of people whom Dumbledore killed directly? Renee: Maybe she did take him out, but not for long, apparently. Toward the end of the fight, Lucius Malfoy is up and about again, making an unsuccesful atttempt to take the prophecy from Harry (this happens after Bellatrix has defeated Tonks). So either Tonks's stunner missed Malfoy, or it was a rather weak one. Either way, it doesn't support the idea that she was a particularly good Auror. I don't doubt Rowling intended her to be competent. The problem, for me - a recurrent problem in the series - is that she told us but did very little to show it to us. Alla: Yes, you are right. He does get up on page 804 and puts the wand between Harry's ribs. Ooops Alla. Sorry. On the other hand, stunner does suppose to not last forever and he falls down soon enough where Sirius and Bella are duelling, so maybe he was weakened by it. As I said before, I did not see any aurors showing the impressive fits like Minerva did in battle of Hogwarts for example, I just do not see Tonks as being shown any less competent as any of them, especially by virtue of her being a woman. JMO, Alla From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 16:07:36 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:07:36 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181072 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > > Magpie: > > > > > I actually must disagree with all the "Tonks is a great auror" > > > defenses because I've never seen her be a great auror. I've > > > seen her be a woman who leaves her post and loses her powers > > > because her primary focus in the books is her man and not her > > > job--which doesn't make me condemn her since some people are > > > more focused one way than another, but she had a long time to > > > impress me with her auror skills and instead gave the consistent > > > impression that this wasn't her strong point. She's mostly > > > linked to Merope Gaunt. > > Yolanda > > > > I disagree with your disagreement. Tonks is one of the "new" > > members inducted into the Order. DD or Moody must have thought > > well of her abilities to trust her. Neither of them, wouldn't > > have selected someone to stand beside them or other Order members > > in life or death situations if they didn't think she was up to > > the task. > > Magpie: > I didn't disagree that she *was* an auror, I disagreed that I ever > saw her doing anything to show she was a particularly good auror. > You're not describing that here, you're saying that she must have > been a good one or else she wouldn't have been there, but I didn't > see any of it. This is exactly my point--yeah, I can "tell" myself > that it's hard to become an auror and if she's in the Order maybe > she's supposed to be good at it, but when it comes to showing her > doing things in canon she doesn't stand out in that regard. She's far > more known for pining after Lupin and losing her powers and getting > left by Lupin. The barrel must be pretty empty if we're scraping the > bottom to come up with checking an empty train and finding Harry > stuck there into impressive auror action. > > -m Montavilla47: Not to run down Tonks or anything, but I wasn't very impressed with her abilities in OotP. Yes, she was part of the Order, but so was Mundungus and he seemed pretty useless. Surely, he wouldn't have been given the job of guarding Harry if he weren't responsible? Well... not so much. Tonks struck me as very young, humorous, but not especially compentent. She confided to Harry that she wouldn't have made it into the Auror program if she didn't have her unique metamorphmagus talent, since she was "dead clumsy." She didn't do much worse than the other Aurors in the MoM raid, although I seem to recall she was the only Auror who was unconscious at the end of the skirmish. If we're to judge competency by that conflict, Lupin came out the best, being both conscious and unharmed (and alive). In HBP, she seemed more competent than before in the early part of the book when she rescued Harry. Although, since she was on the train to guard HIM, she was bit late on the uptake (unless she wasn't on the train, but rather meeting it.) Or was she just generally guarding students? I'm not exactly sure on that. Still, I was impressed that she managed to jump off the train without falling on the tracks, since in OotP, she couldn't navigate a hallway without knocking something over. Also, I give her points for fixing Harry's nose. But, as the book progressed, I couldn't help wondering why she wasn't given compassionate leave, since she seemed so terribly depressed and listless in her duties. The time that she came hurrying to talk to Dumbledore instead of staying at whatever post she was supposed to be filling did not impress me as being excellent Auror work. Also, about the Aurors... I don't put a lot of stock into a brochure in describing the status or difficulty of Aurorhood. Brochures always hype things. Given that the Aurors weren't able to provide proper security at the QWC, I figured that they were only about as competent as the rest of the Ministry. In other words: Not much. Montavilla47 From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 16:10:57 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:10:57 -0000 Subject: Numbers of Students (WAS: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman) In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFC63279@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181073 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > > > Yolanda: > Remember, in JKR's mind, there are > 1000 students at Hogwarts. That's a lot of compartments. > > > Sharon: > Did she say that in an interview? How could there be that many students? I know there's been a discussion on here before about numbers not being verified - -there could be lots of students there that don't get a mention becuase they're not part of the story. But 1000! That would be about 115 in each year. We only really hear of about 40 in Harry's year. How could there be another 75 that don't have anything to do with the story? > Montavilla47: Yes. They were all in Slytherin and they were all good. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 16:24:24 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:24:24 -0000 Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed?/ Tonks as auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181074 Alla: But I can only assign him some percentage of liability here and not very high. Alla: Oh how much I hate wasting a post on this, but just to be clear I meant Dumbledore in this sentence not Snape. But even with Snape whom I would probably assign at least 50% liability for Potters death, I still would not call him more responsible then Voldemort. You would say that Dumbledore is more responsible for Moody and Sirius' deaths than Voldemort? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jan 28 16:32:19 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:32:19 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman/Secret Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181075 > > Magpie: > > I don't remember asking for examples of her skill as an auror.:- ) > > It's not that I doubt she has the skills aurors have. I know she's > > with the other Order members in their scenes in OotP. She's part > of > > the fight in the MoM. I'm just saying that Tonks is mostly > important > > for her Lupin storyline. > > > Alla: > > I definitely took this sentence as challenging Tonks' skill as auror. > > "Magpie: > I didn't disagree that she *was* an auror, I disagreed that I ever > saw her doing anything to show she was a particularly good auror." > > If you do not disagree that she is a good auror, I really have > nothing > to argue with. She IS important for her Lupin's storyline, I just > thought you were disagreeing that she was competent auror. I am not > sure if I agree that she is MOSTLY important for Lupin's storyline > simply because whole OOP she is well, not doing any romance with > Lupin, > but sure in the next two books it is important. Magpie: Sorry I was unclear. I meant "particularly good auror" meaning that she wasn't highlighted as being exceptional amongst aurors, not meaning that I thought she was exceptionally bad at her job. Like Hermione is a "particularly good" student meaning she's exceptional amongst good students. There's no question that women can be aurors and I don't see any reason to think they'd be worse at it than men. I just wouldn't look to Tonks if I wanted a character that's about being a great auror. Shelley: I doubt that every student standing with Harry that first day would have been completely ignorant of the sorting hat. I bet you that Draco knew. Magpie: Exactly. I think JKR just put him amongst kids who didn't know so we could see the Sorting Hat in action rather than hearing about it, which wouldn't be as fun for the reader. With Ron she has his brothers teasing him by being cryptic about it. I don't think there's any important meaning in Harry's kids knowing about it. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 28 17:17:08 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:17:08 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman/Secret Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181076 Magpie: There's no question that women can be aurors > and I don't see any reason to think they'd be worse at it than men. > I just wouldn't look to Tonks if I wanted a character that's about > being a great auror. Pippin: I agree Tonks didn't get a chance to shine as a warrior mom. I think JKR didn't want anything to take away from Molly's big moment. But JKR herself is the most successful working mom in history. If her life was fiction, who'd believe it? I think JKR honestly feels that combining a brilliant career with motherhood would be asking a lot of most people -- especially since most people aren't going to have brilliant careers anyway. But she shows men as well as women struggling to balance the needs of a dependent family with life outside the home. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 17:36:01 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:36:01 -0000 Subject: Tonks/Sorting Hat (Was: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman/Secret Sorting Hat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181077 Magpie wrote: > We've got a bunch of aurors who can do all the things one has to do to be an auror. Tonks is the one who changes her hair color and her nose for entertainment before losing her powers to despair when her boyfriend leaves her. Then she gets married, has a baby and dies. If somebody claimed that Tonks was incompetent at work I'd say there's no evidence of that, but somebody gave me that character as being about being a strong female Auror I'd think that was disappointing. > Carol responds: I agree that Tonks didn't live up to her potential to be a strong female character (and I never saw the point of making her clumsy; maybe JKR thinks that's an endearing trait, but it never played into the plot.) However, in Tonks' defense, she does a lot more with her Metamorphmagus abilities--on page--than change her nose and her hair color to entertain her friends. Here are the two examples I mentioned in passing in another post: "An old woman greeted them on the corner. She had tightly curled gray hair and wore a purple hat shaped like a porkpie. [What's a porkpie? Anything like a chicken pot pie?] 'Wotcher, Harry,'she said, winking (OoP Am. ed. 181). The "old woman" is one of Harry's escorts to Platform 9 3/4, along with the "dog" who's not supposed to be there and gives himself away. "Harry found himself shunted out into the cold air with Tonks (today heavily disguised as a tall, tweedy woman with iron-gray hair) chivvying him down the steps" (524). ("Gray" is the spelling used in the American edition; I assume that it's "grey" in both passages in the Bloomsbury edition.) Tonks is briskly efficient in this scene, getting them all on the bus and interrupting Stan Shunpike's spiel with, "Yes, yes, we know." And when he says, "'Ere. It's 'Arry--" she responds "menacingly" with, "If you shout his name, I will curse you into oblivion" (524). Pretty formidable, I'd say. She splits them up and sends Remus to stay with Fred, George, and Ginny in the back while she escorts the others to the top deck. Stan informs Harry that "that bossy woman 'oo got on with you" (Tonks) has "given us a tip to move you up the queue" (526). (query to British readers--is "tip" used in the sense of a hint or has she paid them money to go to Hogwarts out of sequence?) She's in front with the driver and Hermione, but she can see (and probably hear) Harry, Ron, and Stan, who has followed them. Tonks also casts a careful eye around both before and after they get on the bus. I think we're seeing Auror Tonks at work here. I wouldn't mess with her, myself. More important, perhaps, we see that when she loses her Metamorphmagus abilities in HBP, whe's losing a lot more than the ability to change her hair color and the shape of her nose. Like Wormtail, she can disguise herself most effectively without the need for Polyjuice Potion. And unlike him, she can change her appearance completely. The little old woman and the tall, tweedy woman are not the same person. (I'm not sure, but I think that both are her own creations rather than being modeled on witches or Muggles of her qcquaintance.) Evidently, she has fully mastered her natural Metamorphmagus abilities and learned to make excellent use of them. Sidenote on 12 GP, which we were discussing in another thread: There's a description of it "shrinking rapidly as [the houses] on either side of it stretched sideways, squeezing it out of sight"--steps and all, I assume--on the same page as the second description of Metamorphosed Tonks (524).. New topic: zanooda: > If so, it's a pity Harry was such a blabbermouth and told his kids about the Sorting Hat :-), because they (or at least Albus) definitely know all about it! Carol: I think it was teasing James who was the blabbermouth. He tells Albus about thestrals ("You said they were invisible!") and Harry tells him not to believe everything that James says about Hogwarts. And since Albus Severus already knows about the Sorting Hat, there's no harm in soothing his anxiety by telling him that it will let him choose Gryffindor over Slytherin if it matters to him (as it no longer matters to Harry). > > Magpie: > In Harry's defense, maybe he knew it was more important that he and his friends know nothing about the Hat than his kids, because we readers were supposed to be in suspense with Harry and now we already know about the Hat. Carol: Well, yeah, but I'd say that it's JKR, not Harry, who's no longer concerned about keeping the reader in suspense. However, it does seem like a good idea, in general, to keep kids who don't have mischievous older brothers in suspense about the Sorting system, in particular not telling them that they can choose the House they go into. Otherwise, kids raised in the WW will have a significant advantage over Muggle-borns, and will also be placed according to their desires rather than their suitability to a particular House. Imagine a kid with a mind like Goyle's who desperately wanted to be placed in Ravenclaw because he for some reason perceived himself as smart, or a cowardly kid who wants to get into Gryffindor as happened with Peter Pettigrew. (Did he already percieve James as "the biggest bully on the playground" and overhear him saying that he wanted to be Sorted into Gryffindor? If he's Muggle-born, as I suspect, that would be the only way he'd have any idea about the Houses.) Help. I think the poor Sorting Hat does the best it can to place kids where they belong, but when it sees what's in their minds, it sees wishes as well as aptitudes. Would we place a scrawny little wanabe athlete with jocks? A kid who can't carry a tune but wants to be a classical musician with kids who have perfect pitch and can sight-read music? It doesn't seem right to place kids based on their wishes rather than their aptitudes. But, then, it doesn't seem right to place them based on their aptitudes at age eleven. And Slytherin isn't choosing based on aptitudes at all, unless we count cunning. Ambition is a character trait, pure-blood supremacy is an ideology, and excluding Muggle-borns based on blood is discrimination. I like the Sorting Hat as a character. I think it wants to unify the Houses as it specifically states in OoP. But its very existence condemns it to divide the kids into Houses that amount to cliques and pit them against each other. Maybe Dumbledore is right; they Sort too soon. Imagine if Severus and Lily had had more time to be together, in a special "House" for first- and second-years. And maybe James would have changed his mind about Severus if he'd lived in the same dorm with him for two years. Clever kid like that--knows all those hexes and even invents his own spells (assuming that Severus was already doing that at age eleven or twelve). Worth knowing, perhaps? Carol, just explorimg ideas and not sure where she stands on the Sorting Hat From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 17:57:17 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:57:17 -0000 Subject: House-Elves yet again In-Reply-To: <479DD83E.10406@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181078 > a_svirn: > > Oh yes, we do. Kreacher was inherited legally, wasn't he? Of course > > we don't know exactly what sorts of laws regulate wizarding > > inheritance, we are not treated to the equity versus common law legal > > rigmarole, thank Merlin, but we know the essentials. > > Random832: > But we don't. That there is legal recognition that they are property > does not mean that it was laws that made them property - that is, there > is no indication that laws were passed making them property, in the same > way as, say, laws were passed forbidding Goblins to use wands. For an > analogy, say I own an X-Box 360. It is legally recognized that an X- Box > 360 is property, it can be inherited, etc. But this is not a law that > has been passed by a particular legislature, there is no "X-Boxes are > considered property act of 1986"; rather, the fact that movable > inanimate objects are considered property is something that has existed > in human society for a hundred thousand years. a_svirn: I don't see what it matters. You mean that they did not pass an act No. so and so, that proclaims elves chattel property? May be they didn't. Then again, maybe they did. It doesn't matter: so long as elves are legally recognized as chattel property, they are property by law. Law does not necessarily mean acts of Wizengamot, you know. Especially if wizards favour Common Law, which I rather think they do. > >> Carol: > > Somehow, in the distant past, House-Elves started > >> serving Wizards, whether voluntarily or otherwise, and somehow they > >> became magically associated with those old families and houses, > > > > a_svirn: > > We know how. They were enslaved. That's how it is called in canon. By > > an elf. > > Random832: > That doesn't answer the fundamental question of *HOW* they were > enslaved. Whether it was their own choice or something forced by wizards. a_svirn: I have even more fundamental question: why on earth should it have been their choice? We know they want to serve wizards and probably always have. How does it follow that elves wanted to be bound to them? And even if they did want it (from the lack of sophistication or for the reasons of security) would it not mean taking advantage of them? a_svirn. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 18:13:49 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:13:49 -0000 Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/Werew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181079 Angel wrote: > And while we're on the subject...Dumbledore killed others too not just Severus, maybe not as many as Voldemort, maybe not as directly and cruelly as Voldemort, but kill as effectively as Voldemort - yes. > > Take your pick. > > Murders > Ariana, Sirius, Gryndel, Severus, (the owl), Moody...etc... > > Physical injuries > the trio - PS, etc, etc, Katie in HBP, Ron in HBP, Rosmerta in HBP, etc... > > As I said earlier he may not have pointed his wand at these people and shot green flames but by his manipulations he was as much responsible for their demise as the actual doer of the killings. > Carol responds: I hope that you're not serious here. Snape was murdered by Voldemort, and DD could not have intended his death since he needed him alive to convey the self-sacrifice message to Harry. We don't know who killed Ariana, but clearly DD wasn't intending to kill anyone; he would know if he'd cast an AK. Sirius was murdered by Bellatrix. He was at the Mom (and standing on the dais of the Veil) by his own choice. DD did not send him there nor order Bellatrix to kill him. DD specifically did *not* kill grindelwald (and hesitated for several years even to fight him. Voldemort murdered him. Hedwig was killed by a stray curse meant for Hagrid or through the sadistic impulse of a DE. Moody was killed because he chose to escort the cowardly and unreliable Mundungus, who Diaapparated because LV was trying to kill *him*. As for injuries, Katie and ron were injured by Draco (who, of course, meant to kil DD on Voldemort's orders) and Rosmerta was Imperiused by Draco. You cannot blame one person for the actions of another even if his choices contributed to those actions. You are confusing the unintended consequences of characters' choices (a very frequent and important motif in the HP books) with intention. I can think of only one case when we can fairly blame one character for the actions of another, and that's Voldemort's order to Wormtail to kill Cedric. Of course, Wormtail is also to blame for obeying the order rather than stomping on the thing in his arms or killing *it.* (Maybe he was afraid of being eaten by Nagini if he disobeyed?) But we might as well blame Harry for killing Wormtail based on the chain of events that followed his act of mercy in sparing Wormtail's life. After all, if Harry hadn't spared him, Wormtail wouldn't have cut off his hand to resurrect Voldemort, who wouldn't have given him the cursed silver hand that strangled him when he hesitated to kill Harry, feeling, perhaps, a flicker of remorse. Yep. That Harry is a murderer and Wormtail is his victim. Almost every choice that Dumbledore and Harry and Snape made had unintended consequences. For example, Dumbledore could have killed Grindelwald. Had he done so, the trail would have grown cold and Voldemort would not have searched for a man he knew to be already dead. He might have been thwarted in his search for the Elder Wand or he might have robbed Dumbledore's grave sooner. Either way, the story would have had a different outcome. Or how about Harry's choice to grab the photograph of young Grindelwald, which he dropped, giving Voldemort the clue he needed to identify Grindelwald? If only he'd kept on searching fruitlessly for an unknown blond boy (now obviously an old man), he'd never have obtained the Elder Wand. It's all Harry's fault, just like believing Voldemort's vision, which in turn leads to Sirius Black's death, makes Black's death all Harry's fault. Please, before anyone jumps on me, I'm being facetious here. Ironically, Harry's attempt to "save" his godfather (who is perfectly safe in 12 GP) leads to Black's death, but Harry doesn't kill him or even intend his death. (Neither, again ironically, does Voldemort or Kreacher--or even Bella, till he shows up where he's not supposed to be. And his innocent attempt to retrieve that photograph does lead to the murder of Grindelwald (and move LV a step closer to resolving the mystery of the Elder Wand), but that is in no way Harry's fault. Carol, afraid that her complicated reasoning process is less than clear but trying to distinguish between murder and unintended consequences of both random choices and well-laid plans that gang aglay From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 18:19:41 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:19:41 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 16/17 - post DH look Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181080 "In years to come Harry would never quite remember how he had managed to get through his exams when he half expected Voldemort to come bursting through the door at any moment" - p.262 Alla: Well, this quote is not exactly new, but I am typing it up again to feel pleased one more time that it turns out to foreshadow exactly what Geoff used to bring it up for - Harry lives YAY. "I've just thought of something," said Harry. He had turned white. "We've got to go and see Hagrid, now" 'Why?" panted Hermione, hurrying to keep up. "Don't you think it's a bit odd," said Harry scrambling up the grassy slope, "that what Hagrid wants more than anything else is a dragon, and a stranger turns up who just happens to have an egg in his pocket? How many people wander around with dragon eggs if it's against wizard law? Lucky they found Hagrid, don't you think? Why didn't I see it before?" - p.265 Alla: Another example of Harry thinking :) and before Hermione realised it even. Love. "We've got to go to Dumbledore," said Harry. "Hagrid told that stranger how to get past Fluffy, and it was either Snape or Voldemort under that cloak - it must've been easy, once he'd got Hagrid drunk. I just hope Dumbledore believes us" - p.266 Alla: This bit just annoyed me all over again. Harry is NOT rushing into the battle yet. He wants to go to Dumbledore, to responsible adult now when he collected all the proof, or he thinks so LOL. It just seemed to me that Dumbledore beat out of him whatever remaining trust in adults he had, metaphorically speaking. Yeah, I am surprised that he rushed to save Sirius in OOP.... NOT. "Be warned, Potter - any more nighttime wanderings and I will personally make sure you are expelled. Good day to you" - p.269. Alla: HA. I knew it. I am not bringing this quote to argue whether Snape really meant to expel Harry or just threatened it, I am just bringing it up to show that it exists. Some time ago somebody ( do not remember who it was) was arguing that Snape is not even saying the word "expel" to Harry. Um, yeah, he does do that. "Not for nothing, though, was Harry the youngest Seeker in a century. He had a knack for spotting things other people did not." - p.280 Alla: He was the best candidate to seek horcruxes then? "I see you are not to be distracted. Very well, the Stone. Professor Quirrell did not manage to take it from you. I arrived in time to prevent that, although you were doing very well on your own, I must say. "You got there? You got Hermione's owl?" "We must have crossed in midair. No sooner had I reached London than it became clear to me that the place I should be was the one I had just left. I arrived just in time to pull Quirrell off you." "It was you." "I feared I might be too late." "You nearly were, I couldn't have kept him off the Stone much longer? " "Not the Stone, boy, you?the effort involved nearly killed you. For one terrible moment there, I was afraid it had. As for the Stone, it has been destroyed." "Destroyed?" said Harry blankly. "But your friend?Nicolas Flamel?" "Oh, you know about Nicolas?" said Dumbledore, sounding quite delighted. "You did do the thing properly, didn't you? Well, Nicolas and I have had a little chat, and agreed it's all for the best." "But that means he and his wife will die, won't they?" "They have enough Elixir stored to set their affairs in order and then, yes, they will die." Dumbledore smiled at the look of amazement on Harry's face. "To one as young as you, I'm sure it seems incredible, but to Nicolas and Perenelle, it really is like going to bed after a very, very long day. After all, to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure. You know, the Stone was really not such a wonderful thing. As much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings would choose above all?the trouble is, humans do have a knack of choosing precisely those things that are worst for them." Harry lay there, lost for words. Dumbledore hummed a little and smiled at the ceiling." - p.296 - 297 Alla: I am not having a slightest doubt that Dumbledore set it all up as a test for Harry and his friends. I am not asking you to accept it of course, but if you are accepting this premise, how far do you think he meant it to go? You think his absense was genuine and he indeed was worried that he was too late and that he had to be in Hogwarts at that time? Oh and if we are talking about Dumbledore killing people, I would probably say that he came the closest in mind to killing Flannels, still not very directly, but this "having a little chat" does sound quite chilling to me. Oh, and SSSusan I am bowing to you one more time my dear :) You kept telling me that "this little chat" is an indication of Dumbledore not hesitating to order Snape to kill him. Ooops, too bad I did not listen. That's all folks :) See you from inside CoS. Can you guess which topic I most likely will not touch? ;) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 18:30:00 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:30:00 -0000 Subject: Different values of Snape/ Re: House elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181081 Carol earlier: > > He only says that he'll feed the shrinking Solution to the toad to test it at the end of the class. Only after he has seen Hermione helping Neville and is perfectly aware that the potion is green (as it should be) and not orange does he suggest that "If he has managed to produce a Shrinking solution, it will shrink to a tadpole. If, as I don't doubt, he has done it wrong, his toad is likely to be poisoned" > (PoA Am. ed, 128). > > Aleta: Actually, he (as you state later) threatens Neville with > feeding the potion to the toad earlier in the class period, when the > potion is in fact the wrong color. Carol again: Feeding the potion to a toad to test it, which is what he says he intends to do after Neville has had the remainder of the class period to put it right, is different from poisoning the toad. He says nothing about poison until he's perfectly aware that the potion is properly made. He states that he doesn't doubt that Neville has made it wrong (an out-and-out lie--he can see that it's green, not orange) and that *if* it's made wrong (which it isn't) it's "likely" to poison Trevor. I'd say that even if it were made wrong, it *unlikely* to poison him, as snapewell knows. After all, he knows exactly what Neville did wrong; he tells him so before resorting to the feed-the-potion (potion, not poison) threat to get Neville to follow directions and do it right. Not a kind or effective method of teaching a boy who's afraid of you and your subject, but Snape is undoubtedly tired of melted cauldrons and ineptitude. But to claim that he "fully intended to poison Neville's toad," is, I think, pushing Snape into Umbridge territory. His weapon is sarcasm, not physical harm to students or toads. Carol, who still wonders why a Shrinking Solution would turn Trevor into a tadpole instead of a smaller toad and wonders whether JKR is confusing shrinking with rejuvenation From hays1962 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 28 13:40:28 2008 From: hays1962 at yahoo.co.uk (hays1962) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:40:28 -0000 Subject: Invisibility Cloak WAS: Re: Tonks as Auror and aurors in general In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181082 > zanooda: > > And, if it's so easy to discover a person under the > Cloak using a simple spell, why did Xeno Lovegood said > that the Cloak gives "constant and impenetrable > concealment, no matter what spells are cast at it"? hays1962: Don't forget that Harry's cloak is one of true invisibility. Spells will not work against it. Accio for example in "The Deathly Hallows," chapter 28 "The Missing Mirror". From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 19:37:41 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:37:41 -0000 Subject: Secret Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: <002001c861a9$b60a6140$6501a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181083 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > I doubt that every student standing with Harry that first day > would have been completely ignorant of the sorting hat. zanooda: And *I* must admit that the idea about the Sorting Hat being a big secret never even crossed my mind before (I mean before Catlady wrote to me about it :-). I've finished reading all the posts on the topic just now and I can see that I'm the only one who thought that Ron not knowing about the Sorting was some kind of JKR's mistake. I'm not sure I'm ready to completely accept the "big secret" idea, but it's so nice to have at least some plausible explanation! Thank you all :-)! From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Mon Jan 28 16:48:07 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:48:07 -0000 Subject: Sirius as a dog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181084 "Zara" wrote: snip > zgirnius: > I can't argue about Sirius. Severus, however, did. > > OotP, "The Lost Prophecy": > "'You see, when you gave Professor Snape that cryptic > warning, he realised that you had had a vision of Sirius > trapped in the bowels of the Department of Mysteries. He, > like you, attempted to contact Sirius at once. I should > explain that members of the Order of the Phoenix have > more reliable methods of communicating than the fire in > Dolores Umbridge's office. Professor Snape found that > Sirius was alive and safe in Grimmauld Place." Jayne: I only wish that Snape had given some sort of sign to Harry that he had understood the cryptic message. It would have made Harry feel better. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 28 19:41:10 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:41:10 -0000 Subject: Tonks/Sorting Hat (Was: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman/Secret Sorting Hat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181085 > Carol responds: > I agree that Tonks didn't live up to her potential to be a strong > female character (and I never saw the point of making her clumsy; > maybe JKR thinks that's an endearing trait, but it never played into > the plot.) Pippin: Actually, the clumsiness is much less evident when she's not with Lupin. Similarly, Ginny gets clumsy around Harry (putting her elbow in the toast and so on.) And why should readers feel that female characters who get emotional are weak, but male characters who get emotional are interesting? Carol: > New topic: > > Help. I think the poor Sorting Hat does the best it can to place kids > where they belong, but when it sees what's in their minds, it sees > wishes as well as aptitudes. Pippin: My latest theory is that if it weren't for blood status, everyone would be a Slytherin by nature, but anyone can choose to be something else. Is there a character who doesn't want power? Or won't deceive to get what he/she wants? Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 28 19:48:18 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:48:18 -0000 Subject: Secret Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181086 > zanooda: > > And *I* must admit that the idea about the Sorting Hat being a big > secret never even crossed my mind before (I mean before Catlady wrote > to me about it :-). I've finished reading all the posts on the topic > just now and I can see that I'm the only one who thought that Ron not > knowing about the Sorting was some kind of JKR's mistake. I'm not sure > I'm ready to completely accept the "big secret" idea, but it's so nice > to have at least some plausible explanation! Thank you all :-)! Potioncat: But kids are so quick to accept what thier peers say over what parents say. Arthur could tell Ron there's nothing to it, a hat is put on your head, then the hat speaks. Then the twins would just nod and say "Of course he "would" tell you that..." and Ron would go off convinced he would have to fight a troll. I don't think it's really a big secret, so much as there is still secrecy around it, with a bit of gullibility and a touch of nervousness. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 19:58:45 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:58:45 -0000 Subject: Invisibility Cloak WAS: Re: Tonks as Auror and aurors in general In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181087 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hays1962" wrote: > > zanooda: > > > > And, if it's so easy to discover a person under the > > Cloak using a simple spell, why did Xeno Lovegood said > > that the Cloak gives "constant and impenetrable > > concealment, no matter what spells are cast at it"? > hays1962: > Don't forget that Harry's cloak is one of true invisibility. > Spells will not work against it. Accio for example in "The > Deathly Hallows," chapter 28 "The Missing Mirror". zanooda: But that's exactly what I was asking about: if Harry's Cloak is so unique and spells don't work on it, how come "homenum revelio" can reveal a person under the Cloak, according to a JKR's interview (Web Chat Transcript)? It doesn't seem logical to me, that's all :-). http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/7/30/j-k-rowling-web-chat- transcript From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Mon Jan 28 20:07:11 2008 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:07:11 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] BDSM - House Elves In-Reply-To: <700201d40801280029g34e69f3cndbdf1894ed47401a@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40801280029g34e69f3cndbdf1894ed47401a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFC6327C@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 181088 Kemper: Slave: The bottom or sub (submissive) in a BDSM relationship. For those of you only ever licking vanilla, there are another 30 flavors. BDSM stands for Bondage/Discipline,Dominate/Submissive,Sado/Masochism. In the BDSM community, there is what's known as a 'slave contract'. The long and short of it is that the slave has veto power for certain demands/commands of the master. Unfortunately, the House Elves didn't think this up and so their psychological need for being bound and submissive was abused by unscrupulous masters. House Elves are bottoms who need to be topped. They want to be bound (collared) to a master. But not just any master, a master who is compassionate. This is evident by Kreacher's reversal from HBP's denial/refusal of Master Harry in the Dursley living room to DH's laud of his Master as he led the charge of House Elf brigade. House Elves are slaves, but they want to be slaves under safe and sane conditions: kind of like, but exactly like, slaves in the BDSM community. Sharon: It seems this topic won't die a natural death :-) That's an interesting theory. Certainly house elves are willingly submissive, but is that becuase they've been socialised that way? Would they be so willingly submissive if they were born free? Also there is no evidence that they get any sexual satisfaction from being submissive or being beaten, although it does appear they get SOME kind of satisfaction. So the parallel is clearly there, at least in some form. And a 'slave contract" would indeed seem to be what they would want, given that they always respond best to a compassionate master. Kreacher hated the trio until harry started to show some compassion and respect for him. Before that kreacher betrayed Sirius becuase Cissy was nice to him. Dobby will do anything for Harry becuase Harry helped him get away from his abusive master. Etc., etc. So yes, I agree that House elves want to be submissive, to be collared to a master, but also treated with kindness. The fact that BDSM has sexual connotations, though, somehow makes me stop just short of agreeing completely to the comparison. Sharon, who now has an alarming image of a house elf with a studded collar, tied to a bedpost. Eek! Thanks for that Kemper! From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Mon Jan 28 16:01:11 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:01:11 -0000 Subject: Moody dangerous, not Snape WAS Re: Different Values of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181089 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > It was mean to frighten Neville this way, but > I never thought there was any actual danger that he'd > kill his toad. That's what Snape's all about--he can > hate people without crossing that line. It's Moody > who's the teacher truly dangerous to Neville. Don't forget it is not the real Moody though!! The real one would not have hurt Neville or anyone else unless they were evil. Jayne From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 20:17:13 2008 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:17:13 -0000 Subject: Invisibility Cloak WAS: Re: Tonks as Auror and aurors in general In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181090 > zanooda: > > But that's exactly what I was asking about: if Harry's Cloak is so > unique and spells don't work on it, how come "homenum revelio" can > reveal a person under the Cloak, according to a JKR's interview (Web > Chat Transcript)? It doesn't seem logical to me, that's all :-). Finwitch: Few ideas: 1) Macbethian solution: The spell is not cast at the CLOAK, but at humans/surroundings in general... Like some sort of heat-camera or echo-scan, only a specified spell. 2) It works for Dumbledore, because he's using Elderwand that's unbeatable. 3) Dumbledore has knowledge that the Invisibility Cloak could be in use there. 4) The spell may detect and magnify sound of human breath - so Dumbledore knows how many humans and where in the room there were... 5) Maybe it's a spell only Dumbledore (and JKR) know about? Maybe it was Aberforth's invention when Albus became invisible during their play of hide-and-seek? Finwitch From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Jan 28 20:19:26 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:19:26 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Secret Sorting Hat References: Message-ID: <003e01c861eb$153edfb0$6501a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 181091 >> I doubt that every student standing with Harry that first day >> would have been completely ignorant of the sorting hat. > > > zanooda: > > And *I* must admit that the idea about the Sorting Hat being a big > secret never even crossed my mind before (I mean before Catlady wrote > to me about it :-). I've finished reading all the posts on the topic > just now and I can see that I'm the only one who thought that Ron not > knowing about the Sorting was some kind of JKR's mistake. I'm not sure > I'm ready to completely accept the "big secret" idea, but it's so nice > to have at least some plausible explanation! Thank you all :-)! Shelley: I don't think Ron not knowing about the Sorting Hat was a mistake on JKR's part, but rather it has a canon explanation: Fred and George! There were always teasing Ron, and spread a false story of what it would do just to torture him. It was just too much fun for them not to tell Ron the truth! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 20:21:04 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:21:04 -0000 Subject: House-Elves yet again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181092 Carol earlier: > > Anyway, I've strayed as usual from my point, which is that the law > > recognizes House-Elves as property, but I doubt that they became > > property ("slaves," to use your word) through legislation. > > a_svirn: > Very probably they first become the property of wizards de facto, and then the situation was legitimised. It has been in fact the case with many a law. I don't see how it makes the situation any more palatable. Carol again: Nevertheless, House-Elf servitude or ownership or whatever it is did not begin with a law declaring all House-Elves to be "slaves" or property. It began with an enchantment. Whether that enchantment is part of House-Elf nature or was imposed on them by Wizards, we don't know. All *I* know is that in folklore, elves voluntarily serve humans until they are given clothes. I suspect that JKR altered that bit of folklore for her own purposes, retaining the House-Elves' desire to serve humans and the giving of clothes. We can't know how the House-Elves changed from being voluntary servants to Wizards to being owned by them. Maybe the Wizards simply realized that the House-Elves would stay with them and their families, becoming hereditary family retainers who worked without pay (happily and efficiently if they were treated well) until they were given clothes. And maybe some of them started to use clothes (as Mr. Crouch did) as a threat to hold over the House-Elves' heads if they didn't do a good job--as some human employers hold the threat of being fired over the heads of their employees. "Freedom" (whatever that means) and the clothes that magically sent House-Elves on their way, no longer able to serve that family (as we see with Winky) became associated with disgrace. Clearly, serving a particular family is a tradition in the eyes of House-Elves like Winky and Kreacher. (Not Dobby, but Dobby is horribly abused and is in other ways an anamoly. "Yeh get oddballs in every family" or whatever Hagrid says about him.) > Carol earlier: > There's some sort of enchantment that can only be undone by giving a House- Elf clothes, and it seems to be part of the nature of House-Elves. > > a_svirn: > No, this particular enchantment does not seem to be a part of their nature to me. It involves cultural artefacts. It is obviously an enchantment that was put on elves by wizards. Carol again: Not obviously, or we would agree, right? I'm not sure when or how House-Elves as a species originated, but when we see elves in folklore, the giving of clothes is already the means of ending their association with a particular set of humans. Clothes may be a cultural artifact (I'm using the American spelling)--not necessarily a Wizarding artifact, but a human one--but maybe House-Elves originated at a time when human culture, including clothes, was well-established. We need not assume that some Wizard somehow enchanted all House-Elves to work for Wizards and be freed by clothes. I think that the desire to work for humans (specifically Wizards in JKR's version of the story) is part of their nature. As for the enchantment that "frees" them when they're given clothes, why would any Wizard want to do that to his own Elf or any other? that must be part of their nature, too, just like the nature of Hippogriffs is to be proud, and the way to tame them is to look them in the eye and bow to them. Or the nature of Unicorns is to fear boys and men but submit to girls ("virgins" in folklore). Forgive me for saying it yet again, but House-Elves are magical creatures, just like dragons and Hippogriffs and Merpeople. They are not human. They have different needs and natures, and the magic that binds them is by no means necessarily an enchantment placed on them by Wizards any more than a Wizard enchanted Thestrals to be invisible to anyone who has not seen death. > a_svirn: > I quite agree with you that they naturally want to serve. Carol again: Good. And apparently serving Wizards is *all* they want to do. Are we agreed on that point as well? (If so, I can drop my argument about their not wanting to go into business or a profession such as teaching or Healing as a given. Also banking, which seems to be the province of Goblins.) I would add that they prefer *house*work, being House-Elves, but perhaps that's a given as well. a_svirn: > What I don't understand is how it is translated into wanting to be owned. Carol responds: Winky wants to be owned. She wants to return to the master who "freed" her against her will. Kreacher has no objection to being owned. ("Kreacher lives to serve the Noble House of Black.") He only objects to serving the master who broke his (Kreacher's) dear mistress's heart. Being *owned* has nothing to do with it. He *wants* to remain with and serve the representatives of the Black family (whether it's his dead mistress's portrait or Miss Narcissa or Miss Bellatrix) whom he considers worthy of the honor. Sure, he objects to being inherited by Harry, but that's because he doesn't want to be transferred to the service of someone who is not a Black. It has nothing to do with ownership and everything to do with the perceived worthiness of his master. As we see, once he perceives Harry as worthy of his respect, he has no problem serving him (or bieng owned by him). Essentially, House-Elf ownership is a given like the desire to serve Wizards. "Freedom" is not only a disgrace but a dangerous state of affairs in the current state of the WW, as we agree. Not once does Kreacher state a desire to be free. Not once does he object to being owned. He simply does not want to be owned by *HBP!Harry.* It's perfectly okay with him to be owned by DH!Harry, just as it was perfectly okay with him to be owned, as his ancestors were, by the Black family. His hero is Regulus Black, champion of House-Elves, who did not try to "free" him but instead died to avenge the cruel treatment of a House-Elf. Clearly, it's abuse (making Kreacher drink that horrible potion with the assumption that he'd be killed by Inferi) that Regulus was objecting to, and his opposition to that abuse, as well as his self-sacrifice, leads Kreacher to honor him. He does *not* regard Hermione, who wants to free the House-Elves, as the champion of House-Elves. (Her understanding of his thought process does, however, earn her a nod of grudging respect.) a_svirn: Much less wanting to be owned against their will. Carol: It's not a question of being owned, however. It's a question of not wanting to serve an unworthy master. They're perfectly happy being owned by a master they respect, and extremely unhappy when a master they love in effect *disowns* them by giving them clothes (Winky). It seems to me rather like disowning a child, which would only be perceived as good by a child who wanted to be disowned. a_svirn: I've been asking this very question many a time and yet to receive an answer. I almost feel that you purposefully ignore it. Carol: On the contrary, I have answered it about five times as fully and honestly as I can. Evidently, my answer doesn't satisfy you, whereas from my perspective, it makes perfect sense. I certainly am not ignoring it or I would not be participating in this thread. I'll say it again. Dobby is the *only* House-Elf in canon who objects to being owned. Kreacher superficially resembles him in not wanting to serve a particular master (or two), but that has nothing to do with percieving himself as a slave or not wanting to be owned. He *wants* to serve a human master, but only one that he considers to be a worthy representive of the Noble House of Black, to which, in his view, he belongs. > a_svirn: > For the life of me I cannot understand how all this can mean "natural" (and yes, I do signal unusual usage). Carol: See upthread. We are talking about magical creatures with mysterious origins. And you've said yourself that the desire to serve Wizards is part of their nature and therefore natural. The enchantment that "frees" them (or severs their connection with the Wizard family they've been serving) also appears to be part of their nature (as Peeves the Poltergeist is "naturally" connected with a castle built by Wizard magic). We're not talking about human evolution or anything else that's subject to a scientifc explanation. We're talking about magical creatures with a mysterious magical origin that involves a mysterious enchantment which may or may not have been placed on them by Wizards. You think that it "must" have been placed on them by Wizards because clothes are cultural artifacts. I think that they came into being at a time when houses (they're *House*-Elves, right?) and clothing were already an established part of Wizard culture, and that enchantment was already part of their nature from the beginning, just as it is in folklore. I think you're using "natural" to mean the opposite of artificial or cultural (babies aren't born wearing clothes). I understand that point. But I'm using "natural" to mean "part of their nature"--that is, the enchantment involving clothes came into being when House-Elves came into being and is part of their nature, just as the desire to serve Wizards and perform domestic chores in a house is part of their nature. (Houses are also cultural artifacts that don't exist in nature as you're using the term, but House-Elves are obviously associated with them.) IOW, you're looking (I think) at nature meaning plants, animals, rocks, trees, earth, and sky. I'm looking at nature meaning the nature of House-Elves, the psychology and powers and enchantments that belong to them as a species. Carol earlier: > > A "minor issue" that they hit themselves on the head with lamps and> bottles? Okay, Now I see that we're poles apart. What I see as horrific, you consider minor. > > a_svirn: > I see it as horrific too. You, however, were the one, who argued in favour of listening to what is important to elves and against imposing our human values on them. They are not particularly unhappy about self-punishment. They are unhappy about being bound against their will. Let's listen to elves, shall we? Carol: The thing is, they're *not* unhappy about being "bound against theri will." They're unhappy being abused (Dobby) or serving "unworthy" masters. they don't want to be "freed," which is what I mean when I say that we should listen to House-Elves. And when Harry, via Hermione, finally listens to House-Elves, he gets a newly clean and devoted Kreacher. That they are not concerned (unlike Hermione) with the self-punishment enchantment does not make it less horrific. And I'm afraid that, in that instance, Wizards *must* step in. If they can't break the enchantment, then they'll have to make sure that they don't give the House-Elves an order that the House-Elves can't carry out. (As for "won't" carry out, as in Kreacher's not want to serve Harry, if they're serving masters they respect, that won't be a problem.) Carol earlier: > > Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. Let me say again: Legislation cannot break either enchantment. You can't undo magic with a law. You can make a spell, such Sectumsempra, illegal, but you can't undo it with a law. You need Snape's elaborate countercurse. > > a_svirn: > Yes, but if Harry knows that he faces Azkaban if he uses it he'll > think twice before do something like that. Carol responds: By all means make Sectumsempra and House-Elf abuse illegal. But you cn't undo House-Elf *ownership* through legislation. The only way to do that is by giving clothes to all the House-Elves, or passing a law ordering all Wizards who own House-Elves to free them under penalty of a year or two in Azkaban, which would make a lot of Wizards and House-Elves extremely unhappy. The "cure" would be worse than the disease. All I'm saying is that a law cannot undo an enchantment. Only magic, specifically a countercurse or countercharm, can undo an enchantment. And, in this case, perhaps undoing the enchantment is not the solution to the problem, especially if the problem is House-Elf abuse (including self-punishment) as opposed to "slavery." Carol earlier: > > Making House-Elf ownership illegal is not going to undo the enchantment that binds them to a particular house or family. Only the counterenchantment, giving them clothes, can do that. And requiring all House-Elf owners to give their Elves clothes would, IMO, result in great psychological harm to the Elves, > > a_svirn: > Of course, it would. Giving cloths is not a counterenchantment, it is the way of sacking the elf. The enchantment must be lifted altogether. Carol responds: How would lifting the enchantment altogether (assuming that's possible) be any different from giving the House-Elves clothes, which *is* a counterenchantment in that it lifts the enchantment for an individual House-Elf? Either way, they'd all be forced into unwanted "freedom." Sacked, in other words. Not free to work for their beloved masters if they so chose. We're not talking about the Emancipation Proclamation. We're talking about magic, a specific enchantment for which a specific counterenchantment does exist, and which would be disastrous if universally enforced. (The self-punishment enchantment is another matter. Neither Hermione nor Dumbledore appears to know of a counter-enchantment, which might or might not have to be performed on individual Elves if it were invented or discovered.) Carol earlier: > You said yourself that the WW is no fit place for unemployed House-Elves. Legislation to compel them to treat their Elves compassionately would be a much better solurion. > > a_svirn: > No it wouldn't. For one thing it is impossible to implement, since bound elves cannot inform on their masters, for another a free person is a better solution than a person owned. Better for both parties. Carol: It would not be impossible to implement. All that's required is for the MoM to have some form of spell detection similar to what's used to detect magic performed on Muggles. (see Bob Ogden's visit to the Gaunt family in HBP.) As for "freedom" being better than ownership by compassionate masters whom the Elves respect, I doubt that the Elves would agree with you. Nor do I. > > Carol, who is much more interested in examining the WW as it is > > depicted than in imposing her personal views of how it ought to be > onto it > > > a_svirn: > Well, there is no problem with women rights in the WW that I know of. There is, however a problem with elvish rights, so I really don't understand what it is so unusual in my usage of the phrase. Carol: Sorry to be unclear. I wasn't criticizing your use of the phrase (except that "freedom of choice" is not as self-explanatory as some posters seem to think, having other associations in common usage). What I meant by my sig line is that I, personally, prefer to analyze what's in the books and how the WW works as opposed to imposing my view of what the WW ought to be like onto them. That's why I prefer textual analysis to feminism, Marxism, or any other -ism that looks at a literary work through the lens of the critics' political (or religious) preferences. As Alla said with regard to "abuse," the WW is a different world from the RL with different notions of right and wrong from ours. Alla didn't specify postmodern Western society, but I'll add that as my own thought. I'm not sure whether the mindset of most Wizards is that of Edwardian England or 1692, the year of the Statute of Secrecy, but their teaching tactics, their education, their values are different from ours. And, unlike ours, their world contains magic and magical creatures, which makes their world, from Quidditch to Potions to COMC to House-Elves, very different from ours. I'm much more interested in examining how that world works than in trying to make it conform to my values. And, for the record, I don't believe in owning slaves or in abusing any living creature. I just don't see House-Elves as analogous to human slaves and I see it as a mistake to pass judgment on Wizards for owning them when House-Elves are as much a part of their world as Poltergeists. By all means, end House-Elf abuse if possible. But I can't see ending House-Elf *ownership* as either possible or desirable. Just my take on this imaginary world, in which Snape can fly and werewolves can teach at a boarding school and giants can somehow be transported across the English Channel without anyone noticing. Carol, now wondering irrelevantly how Hagrid got Grawp from the mountains of Europe to Hogwarts From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 20:32:22 2008 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:32:22 -0000 Subject: What if Harry had Tourette's. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181093 > Geoff: > I am somewhat puzzled as to why you are considering the possiblity of > Harry having this condition? What relevance has it got to the story line? > Finwitch: Why? For the fun of speculating, what else? How would different characters react if Harry had a tic in front of them... As for relevance-- well, Rita Skeeter suggested mental issues/brain effection with Harry, so - what if he DID have some? And, of course, Dursleys lack of care, so they'd NOT try and get a diagnosis, would they? As for coprolalia -- I suppose the word Harry might be using is 'MAgic' - Dursleys do treat it as a nasty swear word, after all. Finwitch From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 20:40:17 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:40:17 -0000 Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed?/ Tonks as auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181094 Alla: > But I can only assign him some percentage of liability here and not very high. > > Alla: > > Oh how much I hate wasting a post on this, but just to be clear I meant Dumbledore in this sentence not Snape. > > But even with Snape whom I would probably assign at least 50% liability for Potters death, I still would not call him more responsible then Voldemort. Carol responds: Oh, those ambiguous pronouns. I have the same problem. And, BTW, I did think you meant Snape. However, I think we should assign Wormtail, who betrayed the Potters to their deaths, a share of the blame at least equal to Snape's, especially since Snape regretted revealing the Prophecy because it endangered Lily and went to Dumbledore for help, vowing to do "anything" to protect not only Lily but her hated husband and her child. So we have Voldemort as actual murderer, who surely should get at least 50 percent of the blame; Wormtail as betrayer, without whose revealing of the secret Voldemort could not have committed the murder getting maybe 25 percent; Snape, whose revelation of the Prophecy caused Voldemort to want to thwart it at maybe 20 percent; with Sirius's brilliant idea to switch Secret Keepers getting maybe 5 percent of the blame. True, he didn't intend any harm--quite the opposite--but Wormtail's betrayal could not have happened without the SK switch. Where DD fits into the picture, I'm not sure, unless it's borrowing and not returning the Invisibility Cloak. He did, after all, suggest the Fidelius Charm and offer himself as SK, and if the Potters had accepted his offer, Voldemort would have been thwarted. (And there would have been no Chosen One and no story, but that's beside the point). Carol, not expecting anyone to accept her percentages but thinking it's important to include Wormtail in the list of people to be blamed (and wondering why DD is being included in the list) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 20:46:18 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:46:18 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts education WAS: Re: House-Elves yet again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181095 Carol: As Alla said with regard to "abuse," the WW is a different world from the RL with different notions of right and wrong from ours. Alla didn't specify postmodern Western society, but I'll add that as my own thought. I'm not sure whether the mindset of most Wizards is that of Edwardian England or 1692, the year of the Statute of Secrecy, but their teaching tactics, their education, their values are different from ours. And, unlike ours, their world contains magic and magical creatures, which makes their world, from Quidditch to Potions to COMC to House-Elves, very different from ours. Alla: Yes, absolutely. To be fair though, while I am still not desiring to live in WW because of me deeply despising their education, I am hopeful sort of. As I said before I have no doubt as to what author's stake on teachers' like Snape, but there is something in the book more that gives me hope as well. I mean, I mentioned before that Snape's death gives me hope as well that teachers like him will not be teaching in Hogwarts anymore. But what I did not realize before is that there is something else that made me happy. We can say that Minerva as headmistress is not mentioned in the books, yes? I mean, she said in the interview that she is not a headmistress, but since there is nothing in the books, I feel that I can say that she is not as well. I was upset about it, but I just realized that this is also signals to me anyways that A LOT of things in Hogwarts may change. They may not obviously, but I choose to believe that they may. And while I like Minerva a lot, I realized that it is good that somebody completely new will be a Headmaster, to me of course. Maybe, just maybe this headmaster or headmistress will choose to interfere when innocent kid will be attacked on the first lesson for looking like his mom and dad together and causing bad memories for their teacher. And maybe just maybe this headmaster will choose to sit on the lessons of that bastard and stop him from calling another child idiot boy and will not let things escalate to such degree that this kid will have a boggart in the form of this teacher. It is my speculation, but I choose to believe this. And also I think what makes me very happy is that she did not make Draco a teacher of potions as some speculated. Hopefully somebody decent is teaching them. I also find it very cool that somebody as gentle and strong as Neville of all people became a teacher. Hopefully that is the sign of change in Hogwarts as well. As I said strictly my wish, my speculation. Maybe nothing will change, but I hope it will. Alla From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 21:03:31 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:03:31 -0000 Subject: Invisibility Cloak WAS: Re: Tonks as Auror and aurors in general In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181096 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > Few ideas: > 1) Macbethian solution: The spell is not cast at the CLOAK, but at > humans/surroundings in general... Like some sort of heat-camera or > echo-scan, only a specified spell. > 2) It works for Dumbledore, because he's using Elderwand that's > unbeatable. > 3) Dumbledore has knowledge that the Invisibility Cloak could be in > use there. > 4) The spell may detect and magnify sound of human breath - so > Dumbledore knows how many humans and where in the room there were... > 5) Maybe it's a spell only Dumbledore (and JKR) know about? Maybe it > was Aberforth's invention when Albus became invisible during their > play of hide-and-seek? I think that your ideas number 1, 2 and 4 are good, but the ideas number 3 and 5 don't work for me :-), because: 3) DD can suspect that Harry is under the IC, but so can other characters, who don't attempt to use "homenum revelio" - Snape in "The Sacking of Severus Snape", the DE's in Hogsmeade and in the forest. Why won't they try to use it? 5) It is the "homenum revelio" spell, not something that only DD knows. The link that I gave earlier doesn't work, so here is the exact quote from the transcript: Question: "Why is it that albus dumbledore can see harry under his invisibility cloak at certain moments?" Answer: "Dumbledore, who could perform magic without needing to say the incantation aloud, was using "homenum revelio" - the human- presence-revealing spell Hermione makes use of in Deathly Hallows". So it's not something unique - Hermione knows this spell, and so do the DEs ("The Tale of the Three Brothers"). The rest of your ideas are very good, and I must think them over. Thank you! P.S. What "macbethian solution" means :-)? zanooda From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 28 23:10:10 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:10:10 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 16/17 - post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181097 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > "In years to come Harry would never quite remember how he had > managed to get through his exams when he half expected Voldemort to > come bursting through the door at any moment" - p.262 > > Alla: > > Well, this quote is not exactly new, but I am typing it up again to > feel pleased one more time that it turns out to foreshadow exactly > what Geoff used to bring it up for - Harry lives YAY. Geoff: Thank you for that tip of the hat, Alla. I think that was the nearest I ever came to making any prediction about the ending and I was right. :-) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 28 23:22:45 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:22:45 -0000 Subject: What if Harry had Tourette's. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181098 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > > > Geoff: > > I am somewhat puzzled as to why you are considering the possiblity of > > Harry having this condition? What relevance has it got to the story > line? > > > > Finwitch: > > Why? For the fun of speculating, what else? How would different > characters react if Harry had a tic in front of them... > > As for relevance-- well, Rita Skeeter suggested mental issues/brain > effection with Harry, so - what if he DID have some? > > And, of course, Dursleys lack of care, so they'd NOT try and get a > diagnosis, would they? As for coprolalia -- I suppose the word Harry > might be using is 'MAgic' - Dursleys do treat it as a nasty swear > word, after all. Geoff: Well, you just as well speculate that Harry had three legs or always wore a banana behind his left ear.... Rita Skeeter would suggest anything from self-destructing underwear to delusions of grandeur if it heped to destroy Harry's standing with the Wizarding public. She was a Bothersome Interfering Tenacious Critical Harridan - initially speaking. I quite agree that things are open to a little speculation but at least within the parameters of the story. I think if Harry had possessed a tic, JKR would have made mention of it and I'm sure that some of the nastier students - and even TMR himself - would have used it as a stick with which to emotionally beat Harry. From kaleeyj at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 00:19:08 2008 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:19:08 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181099 tiger_queen: < BIG SNIP> > Working Women: > There are only two examples of working women in the books. One is > Marietta Edgecome's mother. > The only other mention of a working mother is Hermione's mother who > is a dentist. Working women? Poppy Pomfrey, nurse at Hogwarts? Minerva McGonagall, deputy headmistress? Pomona Sprout, accomplished horticulturist and professor? Sybil Trelawney? Delores Umbridge? Amelia Bones? Grubbly-Plank, excellent Care of Magical Creatures Professor? Rita Skeeter, accomplished journalist? Bathilda Bagshot, whose history book is the end-all, be-all definitive source for a history of magic? Madame Maxime? To a lesser extent: Charity Burbage? Miranda Goshawk, author or editor of The Standard Book of Spells, grades 1-? Celestina Warbeck, whose voice is all over the radio? Mullet, and Moran, both international Quidditch stars for Ireland? Griselda Marchbanks, a revered member of the Wizengamot and a long, looooong time OWL Examiner? Marlene McKinnon, an original member of the Order of the Phoenix? Emmeline Vance, an original member of the Order of the Phoenix? Dorcas Meadowes, original member of OotP (killed by Voldemort personally) Millicent Bagnold, former Minister of Magic Granted, none of these people are working mothers, that we know of - Madam Bones comes closest - she has a niece, Susan. And Batty Bagshot does look after her nephew for a summer. We are looking through the Harry filter. For nearly 99% of the entire seven-book, umpteen-thousand word series. He's not going to notice some of the details our "impartial" minds will, and he'll certainly put a different spin on things. Just because we don't see a more diverse group of witches in the workplace doesn't mean they aren't there. Harry hasn't been in every department at the MoM, he hasn't explored other wizarding schools or settlements, and even if he did, he's not looking for a female role model - he has his mother figure. He focuses on the male figureheads. Bex, who had a delightful time looking up all those names From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Jan 29 00:35:51 2008 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:35:51 +0100 Subject: Harry Potter is Anti-Woman/Different Values of Snape References: Message-ID: <00d201c8620e$e7e30c20$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 181100 sistermagpie wrote: > Tonks' finding Harry on the train just is not cool no matter how she > did it. Even if there really were 1000 students, which there never are > in canon, whatever JKR said in that one interview. (She also said "Oh > dear, maths" in an interview, and that's more proved in canon.) Miles, from deep lurkdom: GoF, ch23 The Yule Ball: "The house tables had vanished; instead, there were about a hundred small, lantern-lit ones, each seating about a dozen people." That makes roughly 1,200 people at the ball, and we know of only few dozen guests from the other schools and the Ministry. And we know, that not all students attended the ball. Well, 1,000 students in Hogwarts seems to be a conservative estimation, if you only look at this piece of canon. Alas, JKR contradicts herself not only once, so if you ask me - there is no reliable canon about the number of students, but Harry would have to be blind and dumb not to recognize as much as 1,000 students around him, or the magic of Hogwarts is much more impressive than we know of... Miles, returning to his often failing attempt to at least read the list ;) From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jan 29 00:59:18 2008 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:59:18 EST Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181101 > > Jayne: > > > > Did he not find out in school though? > > Mike: > I'd rather doubt it. The Marauders kept their secret from Dumbledore > for sure, so I'd guess that Severus didn't know else he would have > exposed them, wouldn't you think? Potioncat: It appears that Snape doesn't learn of the Marauders' animagi tricks until the end of GoF, when Sirius transforms in front of him. He may have heard about it at the end of PoA, but I don't think he believed it. Mike, I think Severus would have exposed them, unless he made one of his promises to DD. He seems to keep those. Julie: Do you mean promises like the one he apparently made after the Shrieking Shack incident? What I'm wondering, now that the series is complete, is *why* did student Snape never reveal that Lupin was a werewolf? He hated the Marauders, he no doubt would have been happy to see Lupin kicked out of school after the Shrieking Shack incident. He had every reason to blab it out. I know before DH came out we speculated that student!Snape made a promise to DD not to blab. That perhaps Snape had done something DD was holding over him, or that Snape and DD had some sort of unknown relationship or tie that we would learn about in DH. But that turned out not to be the case. DD had no more interest or investment in Snape or his future than he had in any other Hogwarts student (which was, essentially, none whatsoever). >From canon, we can deduce that Snape was in trouble for breaking curfew, just as Sirius was presumably in trouble for deliberately setting Snape up, and that the two wrongs cancelled each other out in terms of punishment (whether Snape or anyone else thought this was a fair judgment). In PoA, Dumbledore stops Snape's rant about Sirius trying to "murder" him (true or not) by noting that he has forgotten nothing, which shuts Snape up. At the time this seems potentially significant, but now it seems to reference either student!Snape's own misdeed in sneaking out of Hogwarts after curfew, or more likely I think, Snape's activities as a DE and Dumbledore's later vouching that Snape was "no more a Death Eater than I am." But what about the werewolf secret? What could possibly have induced Snape not to spill the beans on Lupin? I can't really think of anything other than that Dumbledore might have threatened to expel him if he did. (Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me now that I know who Dumbledore really was, though there is no canon evidence for it.) But it still rings a bit false, as Dumbledore later doesn't seem to give much thought to Lupin's circumstances or future. Any other ideas? Julie **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kaleeyj at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 01:25:23 2008 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:25:23 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 16/17 - post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181102 Alla: > "In years to come Harry would never quite remember how he had > managed to get through his exams when he half expected Voldemort to > come bursting through the door at any moment" - p.262 > > Alla: > > Well, this quote is not exactly new, but I am typing it up again to > feel pleased one more time that it turns out to foreshadow exactly > what Geoff used to bring it up for - Harry lives YAY. > Bex: So many of us readers forgot about that sentence. And those of us that remembered it (I read that and flipped about three weeks before DH Release) immediately relegated it to a FLINT and kept going. The way the line read, I just thought she put it in, not fully intending to give it away *just* *like* *that*. Alla: > "We've got to go to Dumbledore," said Harry. "Hagrid told that > stranger how to get past Fluffy, and it was either Snape or > Voldemort under that cloak - it must've been easy, once he'd got > Hagrid drunk. I just hope Dumbledore believes us" - p.266 > > > Alla: > > This bit just annoyed me all over again. Harry is NOT rushing into > the battle yet. He wants to go to Dumbledore, to responsible adult > now when he collected all the proof, or he thinks so LOL. > > It just seemed to me that Dumbledore beat out of him whatever > remaining trust in adults he had, metaphorically speaking. > Bex: Two ways to take this. If DD was expecting Harry to go through the trapdoor, then yes - that's exactly what happened. DD was gone, and McGonagall didn't take him seriously, and Harry learned that if you want a job done right, do it yourself, so to speak. BUT, if you are of the opinion that DD was trying to trap Quirrelmort and he *didn't* want Harry running off to the third floor corridor, then it's Harry not having any faith in the capable adults - he doesn't trust that the professors have everything under control, and they are just keeping him in the dark, so he runs off and does something rash, with dire consequences. > Alla: > I am not having a slightest doubt that Dumbledore set it all up as a > test for Harry and his friends. I am not asking you to accept it of > course, but if you are accepting this premise, how far do you think > he meant it to go? > > You think his absense was genuine and he indeed was worried that he > was too late and that he had to be in Hogwarts at that time? Bex: You have your opinions and I have mine, and that being said, we should get on just fine. I think that DD knew Voldemort had infiltrated Hogwarts. By the end of the year, he probably knew it was Quirrell. The main reasons I think this are: 1: DD would have questioned witnesses at the first Quidditch match. Someone would have noticed Quirrell either chanting under his breath, or not even stuttering when Harry was nearly killed. 2. I don't think that the stone was moved out of Gringotts just in the nick of time by coincidence. Why would DD wait until the middle of the summer? Why let a student even SEE something top-secret like that? (Yes, Hagrid knows he can't tell, but right in front of an eleven year old?) DD gives the job to Hagrid (a half giant who can resists most types of magic and can squash a normal sized person flat). And note that the Goblins are BRAGGING about how the vault was emptied that day - they are FLAUNTING the fact the Voldy missed out. Seems like Goblins would not be interested in mentioning that a high-security vault was broken into. That may just be me trying to Humanize them, of course. 3. All of the parts of the gauntlet from the Third floor corridor can be handled by a group of eleven year olds. Granted, Ron is a great chess player, but he's no Bobby Fischer. And Hermione is a very clever girl, but I'm no genius and I was figuring out logic puzzles like Snape's when I was her age. Charmed keys? There are multiple ways to get that key - Accio comes to mind, and there are probably other ways. There are other less humane ways to deal with Fluffy besides music - seventeen year-old wizards are pitted against fully grown dragons three books later, with similar results. And a troll is not particularly difficult to deal with, with some skills and level-headed thinking - a simple camouflage charm plus knocking it out with its own club would probably work well. Devils Snare? That is an effective trap because you have the element of surprise - if someone were to look before they leap, they'd see the floor wasn't quite right and they'd be careful where they land. So the gauntlet was just to slow the intruder down - not stop him. The mirror was expected to keep the stone safe and keep the intruder busy. DD slipped away, on a broom as opposed to the Floo or Apparition, to give Quirrell plenty of time to make his move. DD never intended for Harry to head down there. That's why DD "hurtled to the third floor" after meeting Ron and Hermione - if he had intended for Harry to tackle this quest, I doubt that he would have used such a slow method of transportation to handle that "important business" he was called to. (I would love to call JK on this - not that her interviews are incredibly reliable, but I would love to know which way she wanted this to go. My 2 cents, anyway.) Alla: > Oh and if we are talking about Dumbledore killing people, I would > probably say that he came the closest in mind to killing Flannels, > still not very directly, but this "having a little chat" does sound > quite chilling to me. > Bex: Flannels? He killed some lumberjacks' shirts? Sorry - couldn't resist. :) I'm not so sure that it was so sinister. It's possible, of course, that DD was trying to convince Nick and Perenelle (how would ou make that into a nickname? Perny? Penny, maybe?) for years that they should move on to "the next great adventure" and he finally succeeded, by showing Nick what a dangerous weapon the Stone could be. I'm sure it was a bit morbid, but sinister might be stretching it a bit. I almost wonder if DD may have convinced the Flamels to keep the stone around a bit longer as Voldybait. DD didn't think Voldemort had died in GH in '81, and what could possibly be more tempting than a form of eternal life to the man who fears death above all things? Riddle would certainly have known about the Flamels in his quest to immortality. > Alla: > That's all folks :) See you from inside CoS. Can you guess which > topic I most likely will not touch? ;) Bex: Oh, gee - does it bow, squeak, abuse itself, and fling Malfoys down staircases? ;) From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jan 29 01:36:57 2008 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:36:57 EST Subject: Percentage of blame (was Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181103 Alla: Oh how much I hate wasting a post on this, but just to be clear I meant Dumbledore in this sentence not Snape. But even with Snape whom I would probably assign at least 50% liability for Potters death, I still would not call him more responsible then Voldemort. Julie: *At least* 50%?? That would in fact make Snape *as* responsible as Voldemort, or even more if you include Peter Pettigrew in the equation. Or does Peter get off because he supposedly feared for his life or some such? ;-) Here is my personal assignation of blame for the Potters' deaths: Voldemort: 65%. He actually KILLED them after all! Pettigrew: 25%. He knowingly and willingly betrayed two of his closest friends to Voldemort. And made no effort whatsoever NOT to do so, even where he could have done it without risking his own safety--e.g. he could have refused to be their secret-keeper if he cared even a bit about them, and even while he continued his other Death-Eaterish activities. Certainly other DEs at the time would have found a way to spare those they loved, Lucius (his family), Snape (Lily, as we now know), etc, etc... Snape: 7%. Yes, Snape gave Voldemort the information, but he also tried sincerely to undo what he'd done (way more than Ratboy above did), even if it was primarily for Lily's sake. That counts for something, especially when I compare the full spectrum of his actions against those of the two perpetrators above. Dumbledore: 1%. How stupid is he anyway? Whether he knew with certainty that Snape was a DE, he did know that Snape associated with them at Hogwarts, and that Snape wasn't an Order member. Yet he doesn't bother to Obliviate Snape when Snape may have heard some or all of the Prophecy. (Pre-DH I might have thought Oblivating without Proof was against Dumbledore's principle, but post-DH? Please!) Sirius: 1%. Given that Sirius treated Ratboy as little more than a sycophantic hanger-on who was lesser in every way than the other three, how could he NOT have suspected such lesser makeup might have included character and courage? Or at least that Ratboy might have some resentment issues over being constantly reflected in the limelight of the Golden Duo throughout all their schooldays. James: 1%. See above. As part of said Golden Duo, he was pretty dim too. And who in their right mind would refuse *Dumbledore*--one of the greatest Wizards who ever lived--as Secret-Keeper, then hand the lives of his family over to reasonably competent at best Ratboy? Truly there should have been more to this whole story than what we got, including why James refused Dumbledore, what Dumbledore knew and why he let Snape go without obliviating him, why Sirius suspected Lupin and vice-versa, etc. But JKR didn't give it to us, so we can only work with what is there. And with our individual opinions and valuations of course ;-) Julie **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kaleeyj at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 01:53:55 2008 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:53:55 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181104 > Julie: > What I'm wondering, now that the series is complete, is > *why* did student Snape never reveal that Lupin was a werewolf? > He hated the Marauders, he no doubt would have been happy to see > Lupin kicked out of school after the Shrieking Shack incident. > He had every reason to blab it out. > But what about the werewolf secret? What could possibly have > induced Snape not to spill the beans on Lupin? Bex: Interesting.. For research purposes, I read that particular memory from DH. Snape hints to Lily ("Every month at the full moon") what's "weird" about Lupin - he truly did keep it a secret.(And Lily is in complete denial about it, unless she's pretending ("I know your theory")). Perhaps Snape enjoyed lording it over the Marauders? Knowing that Lupin owed him his continuing education (and possibly his life)? Some other thoughts: Maybe Lily was close friends with Remus? Remus has been self-admittedly hopeless at Potions - maybe Lily was a tutor, and getting Lupin expelled would upset her, so Snape didn't tell to save her feelings? Perhaps Snape didn't have as much a grudge against Lupin as he did Sirius and James, and getting Lupin expelled wasn't what he wanted? (I bet if he could have gotten Sirius expelled without Lupin being thrown out, he would have done it in a heartbeat.) On a similar note - has Snape always been willing to implicate the person he didn't like with very little evidence? Perhaps he had a bit of fairness in him that didn't *want* Remus to be expelled, since it wasn't Remus' fault. And if he managed to get Sirius expelled, Lupin would be kicked out as well, by association and stigma. Perhaps Snape didn't want to see Lupin get the blame for something he had no control over? Snape may have been sent to the hospital wing after his little altercation with James and perhaps Sirius followed them. Snape may have had a chance to hear James rip into Sirius (which would have happened, I'm sure), and sadistic Severus leapt with joy at a way of torturing one or both of them. Sirius feels guilty about endangering Remus' life (James feels guilty about letting it go that far), and both of them know the only reason Remus is still in school is that Severus is keeping mum? Snape might have REALLY enjoyed that. Take your pick, boys and girls. I prefer the ones where Snape is a sadistic bastard, since I feel like that would have been his main motive - but the Lily factor may have a role in this. Possibly a combination of some of the above? ~Bex From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Mon Jan 28 21:23:44 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:23:44 -0000 Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed?/ Tonks as auror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181105 > Alla: > > But I can only assign him some percentage of liability here and not > very high. > snip> >Carol, >not expecting anyone to accept her percentages but thinking > it's important to include Wormtail in the list of people to be blamed > (and wondering why DD is being included in the list) Yes I also have wondered that too Carol. I always considered DD as someone who only killed if it was a matter of life and death (Sorry for the pun not intended. So I cannot see how he can be blamed for any of the death's mentioned except maybe his Sister's which was an accident and for which he blames himself. Jayne A big fan of DD From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Mon Jan 28 21:30:56 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:30:56 -0000 Subject: Tackling the Dursleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181106 Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but I am new here. I love the humour in these books . One of my favorite parts is when, Lupin, Tonks, Moody , Arthur and Molly tackle the Dursleys at the end of OoP about their treatment of Harry during the holidays. It made me smile!!! Jayne From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 02:41:53 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:41:53 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181107 > Bex: > Take your pick, boys and girls. I prefer the ones where Snape is a > sadistic bastard, since I feel like that would have been his main > motive - but the Lily factor may have a role in this. Possibly a > combination of some of the above? zgirnius: Surely seeing James and Sirius suffer when their good friend's life is ruined because of what they did, and ruining that life, fairly or otherwise, would the true sadists's choice? From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Jan 29 02:41:11 2008 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:41:11 -0500 Subject: The Mathematical Genius of J. K. Rowling In-Reply-To: <00d201c8620e$e7e30c20$15b2a8c0@miles> References: <00d201c8620e$e7e30c20$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: <479E9247.3060905@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 181108 Miles wrote: > Alas, JKR contradicts herself not only once, so if you ask me - there is no > reliable canon about the number of students, but Harry would have to be > blind and dumb not to recognize as much as 1,000 students around him, or the > magic of Hogwarts is much more impressive than we know of... Bart: It appears like a good time for me to repeat this quote: "There are 3 kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't." -J. K. Rowling From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 04:08:47 2008 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:08:47 -0000 Subject: BDSM - House Elves In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFC6327C@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181109 > Kemper earlier: > Slave: The bottom or sub (submissive) in a BDSM relationship. > > For those of you only ever licking vanilla, there are another 30 > flavors. BDSM stands for > Bondage/Discipline,Dominate/Submissive,Sado/Masochism. > > In the BDSM community, there is what's known as a 'slave contract'. > The long and short of it is that the slave has veto power for > certain demands/commands of the master. > > Unfortunately, the House Elves didn't think this up and so their > psychological need for being bound and submissive was abused by > unscrupulous masters. > > House Elves are bottoms who need to be topped. They want to be bound > (collared) to a master. But not just any master, a master who is > compassionate. ... > > House Elves are slaves, [that] want to be slaves under safe and sane > conditions: kind of like, but not exactly like, slaves in the BDSM > community. > Sharon: > ... That's an interesting theory. Certainly house elves are willingly submissive, but is that becuase they've been socialised that way? Would they be so willingly submissive if they were born free? Kemper now: Both questions I've pondered. And I go back to the BDSM example: in the US, submissives are born free but they grow up with a certain kink. Some are so into the role, that they are slaves for their master 24/7. Similarly, House Elves desire a master 24/7. I speculate that it has to do with their magic. Here's my brief prediction for The Scottish Book, the name JKR refers to her upcoming encyclopedia on the HP world: House Elves evolved to be so powerful that they couldn't control their magic effectively and discovered that if they bound themselves to another magical being then they became more magically grounded making their magic easier to control. The prediction would then allow for Dobby's inability to make it in the world. Perhaps he bargained with Dumbledore for less pay and less money in order to be bound a bit tighter to maintain control of his magic. > Sharon: > Also there is no evidence that they get any sexual satisfaction from being submissive or being beaten, although it does appear they get SOME kind of satisfaction. So the parallel is clearly there, at least in some form. ... The fact that BDSM has sexual connotations, though, somehow makes me stop just short of agreeing completely to the comparison. Kemper now: Whoa! I did not mean to intend that the House Elves were sex slaves nor to suggest that they received any sort of... stimulation from being bound or collared to a wizard. I merely wanted to suggest a alternate perspective than what's been discussed on other threads. BDSM submissives and House Elves seem to feel the need to be bound, but for completely different reasons. > Sharon closed: > Sharon, who now has an alarming image of a house elf with a studded collar, tied to a bedpost. Eek! > Thanks for that Kemper! Kemper now: You're welcome! Just be sure to give your imagined house elf a safe word like 'yellow', or a safe phrase like 'welcome to walmart' From yvaine28 at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 04:39:50 2008 From: yvaine28 at gmail.com (meann ortiz) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:39:50 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Invisibility Cloak WAS: Re: Tonks as Auror and aurors in general In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d7223330801282039y4ac815f6xd05b3b1135a1f0a5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 181110 > zanooda wrote: > And, if it's so easy to discover a person under the > Cloak using a simple spell, why did Xeno Lovegood said > that the Cloak gives "constant and impenetrable > concealment, no matter what spells are cast at it"? My reply: Maybe Xeno was once again quoting the "mythical" definition of the Hallows. We know that the Hallows' natures are different in real life, as evidenced by the Wand's supposed invincibility, when we know there is more to it than that. =) Meann [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 29 09:01:16 2008 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:01:16 -0000 Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/Werew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181111 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Please, before anyone jumps on me, I'm being facetious here. > Ironically, Harry's attempt to "save" his godfather (who is perfectly > safe in 12 GP) leads to Black's death, but Harry doesn't kill him or > even intend his death. (Neither, again ironically, does Voldemort or > Kreacher--or even Bella, till he shows up where he's not supposed to > be. And his innocent attempt to retrieve that photograph does lead to > the murder of Grindelwald (and move LV a step closer to resolving the > mystery of the Elder Wand), but that is in no way Harry's fault. > > Carol, afraid that her complicated reasoning process is less than > clear but trying to distinguish between murder and unintended > consequences of both random choices and well-laid plans that gang aglay > Allthecoolnamesgone I agree that this is one of the major themes of the books and perhaps one of the reasons for their popularity. After all this is what life is like for all of us. We make choices and live with the world we create by them, good or ill. There's no way out either as failure to choose is also a choice. Isn't this after all the psychological definition of 'Angst', the anxiety caused when we realise the enormity of the choices we face. I have pondered over who made and what was the 'key' choice on which the whole Harry Potter books turned. It could be Snape's choice to join the Death Eaters which then led to him telling V the Prophecy, which led to the Potter's deaths, which led to Harry becoming the Chosen one, which led to.... and so on. Or was it James's choice at age 11 to insult Snape and befriend Sirius whicb led to them bullying Snape who then joined the Death Eaters out of a need to belong.... and so on. It is a fascinating trail of discussion and I guess then lead to the question of whether it is our 'choices' that define us or are we all pawns in a greater game? allthecoolnamesgone From leahstill at hotmail.com Tue Jan 29 09:18:45 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:18:45 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181112 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bex" wrote: > > > Bex: > Interesting.. For research purposes, I read that particular memory > from DH. Snape hints to Lily ("Every month at the full moon") what's > "weird" about Lupin - he truly did keep it a secret.(And Lily is in > complete denial about it, unless she's pretending ("I know your theory")). > > Perhaps Snape enjoyed lording it over the Marauders? Knowing that > Lupin owed him his continuing education (and possibly his life)? > > Some other thoughts: > Maybe Lily was close friends with Remus? Remus has been > self-admittedly hopeless at Potions - maybe Lily was a tutor, and > getting Lupin expelled would upset her, so Snape didn't tell to save > her feelings? Leah: Snape was instructed by Dumbledore not to reveal Lupin's secret: '"Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel. He was forbidden to tell anyone by Dumbledore but from that time on he knew what I was..."' Lupin in POA. Far from enabling Snape to 'lord it' over the Marauders, being forbidden to tell puts Snape in a very awkward position vis a vis Lily, because he can not explain to her what actually happened in the Prank, ie Sirius played a trick which would have killed Snape or turned him into a werewolf, and he can not warn Lily that he was right in his suspicions of Lupin. He is struggling with this in his memory of talking with Lily in 'The Prince's Tale'. It also seems clear that the Marauders were not in any way cowed by Snape's knowledge of Lupin's condition. If the memories in 'The Prince's Tale' are in chronological order, (and they certainly appear to be), then it was after the Prank that the Marauders publically humiliated Snape with Levicorpus etc after the DADA exam. We are also told (by Sirius) in OOTP that James continued to hex Snape even after James and Lily were an item (well after the Prank). Bex: > Perhaps Snape didn't have as much a grudge against Lupin as he did > Sirius and James, and getting Lupin expelled wasn't what he wanted? (I > bet if he could have gotten Sirius expelled without Lupin being thrown > out, he would have done it in a heartbeat.) > > On a similar note - has Snape always been willing to implicate the > person he didn't like with very little evidence? Perhaps he had a bit > of fairness in him that didn't *want* Remus to be expelled, since it > wasn't Remus' fault. And if he managed to get Sirius expelled, Lupin > would be kicked out as well, by association and stigma. Perhaps Snape > didn't want to see Lupin get the blame for something he had no control > over? > > Snape may have been sent to the hospital wing after his little > altercation with James and perhaps Sirius followed them. Snape may > have had a chance to hear James rip into Sirius (which would have > happened, I'm sure), and sadistic Severus leapt with joy at a way of > torturing one or both of them. Sirius feels guilty about endangering > Remus' life (James feels guilty about letting it go that far), and > both of them know the only reason Remus is still in school is that > Severus is keeping mum? Snape might have REALLY enjoyed that. > > > > Take your pick, boys and girls. I prefer the ones where Snape is a > sadistic bastard, since I feel like that would have been his main > motive - but the Lily factor may have a role in this. Possibly a > combination of some of the above? > >Leah: Actually, Snape did not know Lupin was not in on the Prank until the encounter in the Shrieking Shack in POA. '"So that's why Snape doesn't like you", said Harry slowly [to Lupin], "because he thought you were in on the joke?". "That's right", sneered a cold voice from the wall behind Lupin. Severus Snape...' Snape would have like the Marauders expelled, since they had been bullying him for some time (since the first day at Hogwarts, 'The Prince's Tale' strongly suggests). Since James explains to Lily that Snape is being bullied 'because he exists' (OOTP), wishing to have them expelled is rather less sadistic than what they are doing to him. (or than Sirius' comment in POA that if Snape had been killed by WereLupin, it would 'have served him right'.) Snape in fact makes the Wolfsbane Potion for Lupin throughout POA, even though at this stage, Snape believes Lupin was in on the Prank, and that he is both helping Sirius (wrong) and witholding information from Dumbledore (correct, that Sirius is an animagus). Since we are told that the potion is very complex and dangerous, Snape could presumably cause Lupin some discomfort, at least, each month, by a small 'slip' of the hand, but by Lupin's own testimony to Harry, the potion is made 'perfectly'. Not very sadistic. Leah From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 11:29:15 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:29:15 -0000 Subject: House-Elves yet again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181113 > > a_svirn: > > Very probably they first become the property of wizards de facto, > and then the situation was legitimised. It has been in fact the case > with many a law. I don't see how it makes the situation any more > palatable. > > Carol again: > Nevertheless, House-Elf servitude or ownership or whatever it is did > not begin with a law declaring all House-Elves to be "slaves" or > property. a_svirn: I never said it did. (And do you know of any slavery in real life that began with a law proclaiming slaves property?) All I said is that elves are put under double constraints: magical and legal. As opposed to magical and illegal. For instance, when Hermione kept Rita Skeeter in a glass jar she was doing it magically and *il*legally. > Carol: It began with an enchantment. Whether that enchantment is > part of House-Elf nature or was imposed on them by Wizards, we don't > know. All *I* know is that in folklore, elves voluntarily serve humans > until they are given clothes. a_svirn: And as far as I know they are not bound in folklore. Which, considering the issue in point, is a crucial difference. Also the cloth thing from folklore was not for sacking unwanted servants but for getting rid off domestic pests. When hobs were making themselves nuisances (like gnomes in the WW) they were got rid off this way. > > a_svirn: > > No, this particular enchantment does not seem to be a part of their > nature to me. It involves cultural artefacts. It is obviously > an enchantment that was put on elves by wizards. > > Carol again: > Not obviously, or we would agree, right? I'm not sure when or how > House-Elves as a species originated, but when we see elves in > folklore, the giving of clothes is already the means of ending their > association with a particular set of humans. Clothes may be a cultural > artifact (I'm using the American spelling)--not necessarily a > Wizarding artifact, but a human one--but maybe House-Elves originated > at a time when human culture, including clothes, was well- established. a_svirn: So? It wasn't established as a part of nature, was it? Wizards are not born wearing cloths? > Carol: > We need not assume that some Wizard somehow enchanted all House- Elves > to work for Wizards and be freed by clothes. I think that the desire > to work for humans (specifically Wizards in JKR's version of the > story) is part of their nature. a_svirn: You are persistently substitute *owning* with *serving*. Without bondage the picture you are painting (family retainers etc.) is quite a happy one. But we know better. We've seen elves constrained against their will. > Carol: As for the enchantment that "frees" > them when they're given clothes, why would any Wizard want to do that > to his own Elf or any other? a_svirn: Why indeed? So much more convenient to keep them bound. > Carol: that must be part of their nature, too, > just like the nature of Hippogriffs is to be proud, and the way to > tame them is to look them in the eye and bow to them. a_svirn: I thought for the moment you were talking of wizards. That it is a part of their nature to be proud elf-owners. But as I said somewhere upthread I can be as servile as I like, and I still I won't be you slave, until I am bound to you. > Carol: > Forgive me for saying it yet again, but House-Elves are > magical creatures, just like dragons and Hippogriffs and Merpeople. > They are not human. a_svirn: I readily forgive you, but it is quite unnecessary for you to remind me of that. I have never denied the fact. > a_svirn: > > What I don't understand is how it is translated into wanting to be > owned. > > Carol responds: > Winky wants to be owned. a_svirn: When did she ever say so? She only wants to serve the Crouches. It doesn't bother her that she's owned so long that she can have her wish. But if she hated the Crouches she would be as unwilling to be owned as Dobby and Kreacher. > Carol: > Kreacher has no objection to being owned. a_svirn: He does, and says so very emphatically at that: "I won't! I won't". And Dumbledore commented that Kreacher does not want to pass in Harry's ownership. > Carol: > ("Kreacher lives to serve the Noble House of Black.") a_svirn: Again *serve*, not *be owned*. See the question above. > Carol: He only objects > to serving the master who broke his (Kreacher's) dear mistress's > heart. a_svirn: This "only" is the difference between a free elf and a slave. > Carol: Being *owned* has nothing to do with it. a_svirn: Only everything. Carol: He *wants* to remain > with and serve the representatives of the Black family (whether it's > his dead mistress's portrait or Miss Narcissa or Miss Bellatrix) whom > he considers worthy of the honor. Sure, he objects to being inherited > by Harry, but that's because he doesn't want to be transferred to the > service of someone who is not a Black. a_svirn: Which means that he objects to be owned. In this instance by Harry. Why must he comply? Because he's constrained against his will magically and legally. Because he's a slave. A state against which he rebels. Carol: It has nothing to do with > ownership and everything to do with the perceived worthiness of his > master. a_svirn: It has to do with both. But the former is more crucial than the latter. > Carol: As we see, once he perceives Harry as worthy of his respect, > he has no problem serving him (or bieng owned by him). Essentially, > House-Elf ownership is a given like the desire to serve Wizards. a_svirn: I don't understand this phrase. > Carol: > "Freedom" is not only a disgrace but a dangerous state of affairs in > the current state of the WW, as we agree. Not once does Kreacher state > a desire to be free. Not once does he object to being owned. a_svirn: Honestly. His objection even made it in the chapter title. "Will and Wont". > Carol: He simply > does not want to be owned by *HBP!Harry.* It's perfectly okay with him > to be owned by DH!Harry, just as it was perfectly okay with him to be > owned, as his ancestors were, by the Black family. a_svirn: I like your *onlys* and *simplys*. Kreacher may not object to be owned by people whom he wants to serve, yes. But he clearly wants to make his own choices. Which he's quite unable to do while he is a bound slave. > a_svirn: > Much less wanting to be owned against their will. > > Carol: > It's not a question of being owned, however. a_svirn; Yes, it is. They are hereditary slaves (sorry, don't know any euphemism for that), and as such constrained to be owned against their will. > a_svirn: > I've been asking this very question many a time and yet to receive an > answer. I almost feel that you purposefully ignore it. > > Carol: > On the contrary, I have answered it about five times as fully and > honestly as I can. Evidently, my answer doesn't satisfy you, whereas > from my perspective, it makes perfect sense. I certainly am not > ignoring it or I would not be participating in this thread. > > I'll say it again. Dobby is the *only* House-Elf in canon who objects > to being owned. Kreacher superficially resembles him in not wanting to > serve a particular master (or two), but that has nothing to do with > percieving himself as a slave or not wanting to be owned. He *wants* > to serve a human master, but only one that he considers to be a worthy > representive of the Noble House of Black, to which, in his view, he > belongs. a_svirn: He wants to serve. Not to be owned. See question above. > > a_svirn: > > For the life of me I cannot understand how all this can mean > "natural" (and yes, I do signal unusual usage). > > Carol: > See upthread. We are talking about magical creatures with mysterious > origins. And you've said yourself that the desire to serve Wizards is > part of their nature and therefore natural. The enchantment that > "frees" them (or severs their connection with the Wizard family > they've been serving) also appears to be part of their nature (as > Peeves the Poltergeist is "naturally" connected with a castle built by > Wizard magic). a_svirn: That's the first time I heard that Peeves is "naturally" connected to the castle. I would have thought he's connected supernaturally. > Carol: We're not talking about human evolution or anything > else that's subject to a scientifc explanation. a_svirn: And yet, you are trying to explain away their bondage scientifically ? as though it is some kind of an instinct. Well, you can't pass social intuition for an instinct. It may be a magical world, but nature and culture are still clearly discernable there. > Carol: We're talking about > magical creatures with a mysterious magical origin that involves a > mysterious enchantment which may or may not have been placed on them > by Wizards. You think that it "must" have been placed on them by > Wizards because clothes are cultural artifacts. I think that they came > into being at a time when houses (they're *House*-Elves, right?) and > clothing were already an established part of Wizard culture, and that > enchantment was already part of their nature from the beginning, just > as it is in folklore. a_svirn: Except that there is no such enchantments in folklore, since they are not bound in folklore. > Carol: > I think you're using "natural" to mean the opposite of artificial or > cultural (babies aren't born wearing clothes). I understand that > point. But I'm using "natural" to mean "part of their nature"--that > is, the enchantment involving clothes came into being when House- Elves > came into being and is part of their nature, just as the desire to > serve Wizards and perform domestic chores in a house is part of their > nature. a_svirn: To quote Snape I see no difference. "To be a part of nature" is opposed "to be a part of culture". You are talking about essential qualities of house elves. A desire to serve can be an essential quality. And is, in this particular case. The established bond with other species cannot. Especially if it is involved cultural artefacts. > Carol: (Houses are also cultural artifacts that don't exist in nature > as you're using the term, but House-Elves are obviously associated > with them.) a_svirn: So are humans. I can't say I see your point. Humans may be associated with their houses, but no one ever said that houses are a part of human nature. > Carol earlier: > > > A "minor issue" that they hit themselves on the head with lamps > and> bottles? Okay, Now I see that we're poles apart. What I see as > horrific, you consider minor. > > > > a_svirn: > > I see it as horrific too. You, however, were the one, who argued in > favour of listening to what is important to elves and against > imposing our human values on them. They are not particularly unhappy > about self-punishment. They are unhappy about being bound against > their will. Let's listen to elves, shall we? > > Carol: > The thing is, they're *not* unhappy about being "bound against theri > will." a_svirn: Yes, they are. You are trying to rewrite canon, when you deny that Kreacher was opposed to passing into first Sirius's and then Harry's ownership. > Carol: > That they are not concerned (unlike Hermione) with the self- punishment > enchantment does not make it less horrific. And I'm afraid that, in > that instance, Wizards *must* step in. a_svirn: Why? Why only in this instance? If you allow wizards to impose their values, why not go the whole length? > Carol: If they can't break the > enchantment, then they'll have to make sure that they don't give the > House-Elves an order that the House-Elves can't carry out. (As for > "won't" carry out, as in Kreacher's not want to serve Harry, if > they're serving masters they respect, that won't be a problem.) > > Carol earlier: > > > Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. Let me say again: > Legislation cannot break either enchantment. You can't undo magic with > a law. You can make a spell, such Sectumsempra, illegal, but you > can't undo it with a law. You need Snape's elaborate countercurse. > > a_svirn: Both Harry and Dumbledore interpret it as not wanting to be owned by Harry. Though of course he doesn't want to serve him too. > > a_svirn: > > Yes, but if Harry knows that he faces Azkaban if he uses it he'll > > think twice before do something like that. > > Carol responds: > By all means make Sectumsempra and House-Elf abuse illegal. But you > cn't undo House-Elf *ownership* through legislation. a_svirn: Yes I can. If I make the binding enchantment illegal, wizards will have to undo the bondage. > Carol: The only way to > do that is by giving clothes to all the House-Elves, or passing a law > ordering all Wizards who own House-Elves to free them under penalty of > a year or two in Azkaban, which would make a lot of Wizards and > House-Elves extremely unhappy. The "cure" would be worse than the disease. > > All I'm saying is that a law cannot undo an enchantment. Only magic, > specifically a countercurse or countercharm, can undo an enchantment. a_svirn: Of course. But why should anyone bother to find and use the countercharm if things are perfectly legal and convenient (for wizards) as they are. > Carol: > And, in this case, perhaps undoing the enchantment is not the solution > to the problem, especially if the problem is House-Elf abuse > (including self-punishment) as opposed to "slavery." a_svirn: But we are in the agreement that for them it is not a problem at all. And although you are trying to deny the evidence of canon, the problem is ownership. > > Carol earlier: > > > Making House-Elf ownership illegal is not going to undo the > enchantment that binds them to a particular house or family. Only the > counterenchantment, giving them clothes, can do that. And requiring > all House-Elf owners to give their Elves clothes would, IMO, result in > great psychological harm to the Elves, > > > > a_svirn: > > Of course, it would. Giving cloths is not a counterenchantment, it > is the way of sacking the elf. The enchantment must be lifted altogether. > > Carol responds: > How would lifting the enchantment altogether (assuming that's > possible) be any different from giving the House-Elves clothes, which > *is* a counterenchantment in that it lifts the enchantment for an > individual House-Elf? a_svirn: The difference is that one is sacking, a dismissal, while the other is liberation from the bondage. One is disgrace, the other is emphatically not. One means banishment, the other does not. A sacked elf is dismissed, and their prospects are gloomy indeed. A liberated slave is free to go or stay and their prospects are therefore much more cheery. a_svirn. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 29 12:30:50 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:30:50 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181114 > Leah:> > Far from enabling Snape to 'lord it' over the Marauders, being > forbidden to tell puts Snape in a very awkward position vis a vis > Lily, because he can not explain to her what actually happened in > the Prank, ie Sirius played a trick which would have killed Snape or > turned him into a werewolf, and he can not warn Lily that he was > right in his suspicions of Lupin. He is struggling with this in his > memory of talking with Lily in 'The Prince's Tale'. Potioncat: I really wish JKR had given us more information about The Prank. I agree with everything you've said here. It appears to me that Severus showed a great deal of honor in this situation. The Prank happened the end of his 5th year, and he did not reveal the information during his school days or after. (Untill it slipped at the breakfast table years later.) It would seem to me that had to play into DD's acceptace of Snape's promise to "do anything" if DD would protect Lily and later Snape's promise to protect Harry. >Leah: > Since we are told that the potion is very complex and dangerous, > Snape could presumably cause Lupin some discomfort, at least, each > month, by a small 'slip' of the hand, but by Lupin's own testimony > to Harry, the potion is made 'perfectly'. Not very sadistic. Potioncat: On the night of The Seven Potters, he will risk his cover to protect Lupin. That's as bad as Harry's Expelliarmus on Stan. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 12:54:47 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:54:47 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181115 > > Leah:> > > Far from enabling Snape to 'lord it' over the Marauders, being > > forbidden to tell puts Snape in a very awkward position vis a vis > > Lily, because he can not explain to her what actually happened in > > the Prank, ie Sirius played a trick which would have killed Snape > or > > turned him into a werewolf, and he can not warn Lily that he was > > right in his suspicions of Lupin. He is struggling with this in > his > > memory of talking with Lily in 'The Prince's Tale'. Alla: It did not read to me that he was struggling much. More like he was almost flat out telling Lily. And maybe what actually happened in addition to Sirius telling Snape how to get in was Snape knowing full well that he will see werewolf there and going there anyways. > >Leah: > > Since we are told that the potion is very complex and dangerous, > > Snape could presumably cause Lupin some discomfort, at least, each > > month, by a small 'slip' of the hand, but by Lupin's own testimony > > to Harry, the potion is made 'perfectly'. Not very sadistic. Alla: Oh, I do not know. Snape insisting Lupin drink the potion in front of him stroke me as quite sadistic. IMO of course. But of course he was making perfect potion. If Dumbledore forced him to keep Lupin's secret years ago, I will not be surprised if Dumbledore forced him to promise to make perfect potion. I think he tried his hardest to have his sadistic fun and follow DD's orders too. > Potioncat: > On the night of The Seven Potters, he will risk his cover to protect > Lupin. That's as bad as Harry's Expelliarmus on Stan. > Alla: Sure, that he absolutely did. At least he learned something at the end of his life if you ask me. I hope Lupin did too learn something before he died. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 13:18:54 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:18:54 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 16/17 - post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181116 Bex: You have your opinions and I have mine, and that being said, we should get on just fine. Alla: LOL. Mind if I ask you couple questions about yours? Bex: I think that DD knew Voldemort had infiltrated Hogwarts. By the end of the year, he probably knew it was Quirrell. The main reasons I think this are: Alla: Um, I think he knew as well and I think the most obvious hint is when we hear him telling Snape to keep an eye on Quirrell in Prince's memory. But my question to you is do you believe that this excludes the possibility of Dumbledore testing Harry anyways? Honestly and truly there are topics where I am not going to change my opinion and there are topics where I would LOVE to be convinced and this is the one where my eyes and ears are opened. Could you please convince me that Dumbledore did not want Trio to do it? Please keep reading for my reasons why I think he did. Bex: 3. All of the parts of the gauntlet from the Third floor corridor can be handled by a group of eleven year olds. Alla: You just gave a very nice explanation of how it can be handled by group of eleven years old and that means that Dumbledore did not mean for them to do it? I would say the opposite. Bex: So the gauntlet was just to slow the intruder down - not stop him. The mirror was expected to keep the stone safe and keep the intruder busy. DD slipped away, on a broom as opposed to the Floo or Apparition, to give Quirrell plenty of time to make his move. Alla: Ah. But maybe he did not intend to slip away and intended to be in school and for trio to handle corridor and then come by and helped them deal with Quirrel? Bex: DD never intended for Harry to head down there. That's why DD "hurtled to the third floor" after meeting Ron and Hermione - if he had intended for Harry to tackle this quest, I doubt that he would have used such a slow method of transportation to handle that "important business" he was called to. Alla: Right so here are my questions. Why would he give Harry invisibility cloak with the note just in case if he did not intend for them to go there? Why, why would he tell Harry how to work the Mirror of Erised if he wanted for Harry to have nothing to do with it? Why in that conversation that I cited upthread he would say " so you did do thing properly?" Isn't that pretty much ? you did the test I set up for you? Oh, and how would you explain that Harry's speech about "he wanted to give me a chance"? I mean, I always read it as JKR's speaking about what happened and DD's motivations. Bex: (I would love to call JK on this - not that her interviews are incredibly reliable, but I would love to know which way she wanted this to go. My 2 cents, anyway.) Alla: Me too. Alla: > Oh and if we are talking about Dumbledore killing people, I would > probably say that he came the closest in mind to killing Flannels, > still not very directly, but this "having a little chat" does sound > quite chilling to me. > Bex: Flannels? He killed some lumberjacks' shirts? Sorry - couldn't resist. :) Alla: LOL Bex: I'm not so sure that it was so sinister. It's possible, of course, that DD was trying to convince Nick and Perenelle (how would you make that into a nickname? Perny? Penny, maybe?) for years that they should move on to "the next great adventure" and he finally succeeded, by showing Nick what a dangerous weapon the Stone could be. I'm sure it was a bit morbid, but sinister might be stretching it a bit. I almost wonder if DD may have convinced the Flamels to keep the stone around a bit longer as Voldybait. DD didn't think Voldemort had died in GH in '81, and what could possibly be more tempting than a form of eternal life to the man who fears death above all things? Riddle would certainly have known about the Flamels in his quest to immortality. Alla: Um, he basically convinced two human beings that they NEED to die. IMO it is very sinister, not to mention manipulative, but that's nothing new to me. I mean, can you show me ONE healthy human being that wants to die? I am not talking about not being afraid to die. Many people are not afraid of death, but I am yet to meet one healthy person who expressed a desire to die. IMO Flamel's age shows that he had no desire to die whatsoever, not yet IMO. And I am not even talking about immortality, his wife is with him, so it is not like he does not have anybody to share long life with. He invented the stone , right? And here comes Dumbledore and says ? OOPS, you lived enough, stone must be destroyed. I don't know, sounds sinister to me. > Alla: > That's all folks :) See you from inside CoS. Can you guess which > topic I most likely will not touch? ;) Bex: Oh, gee - does it bow, squeak, abuse itself, and fling Malfoys down staircases? ;) Alla: LOLOLOLOL From leahstill at hotmail.com Tue Jan 29 14:15:09 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:15:09 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181117 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: > > It did not read to me that he was struggling much. More like he was > almost flat out telling Lily. Leah: He was trying to convince her without being able to tell her outright. Of course he wants her to know. He is in love with the girl, and is afraid she is going to become close friends (and more) with someone who runs with a werewolf. Alla: And maybe what actually happened in > addition to Sirius telling Snape how to get in was Snape knowing > full well that he will see werewolf there and going there anyways. > Leah: Hardly. Snape is not a fool, he would know he could not use magic or escape from a fully turned werewolf. He is still bitter about the 'Prank' in POA, many years later, in the Shrieking Shack and later talking to Dumbledore. He fully believes this was an attempt by James, Sirius and Lupin to have him killed or bitten and he is quite right about Sirius. > > > > >Leah: > > > Since we are told that the potion is very complex and dangerous, > > > Snape could presumably cause Lupin some discomfort, at least, > each > > > month, by a small 'slip' of the hand, but by Lupin's own > testimony > > > to Harry, the potion is made 'perfectly'. Not very sadistic. > > Alla: > > Oh, I do not know. Snape insisting Lupin drink the potion in front > of him stroke me as quite sadistic. IMO of course. But of course he > was making perfect potion. If Dumbledore forced him to keep Lupin's > secret years ago, I will not be surprised if Dumbledore forced him > to promise to make perfect potion. I think he tried his hardest to > have his sadistic fun and follow DD's orders too. Leah: In what way is watching someone take a potion sadistic?? In fact, it seems to me that Snape watches Lupin drink the potion to reassure himself that it is going to be drunk. He is leaving a werewolf 'on the turn' alone with Harry. (And Snape is right to be cautious, because Lupin does not take the potion on the night of the Shrieking Shack incident). Snape backs out of the room with his eyes on Lupin when he has delivered the potion. That doesn't suggest someone having 'sadistic fun', rather someone who is actually afraid. Snape has nearly died at Lupin's hands/paws. As I said before, this is a complex and unusual potion. It enables the wereperson taking it to have a peaceful transformation. A skilled potion maker like Snape could, I would think, make the transformation rather less peaceful without that being attributable to anything other than the complexity of the potion. He does not do so. The fact that Lupin says that Snape makes the potion 'perfectly' suggests that Lupin may have had less than perfect potions made for him with the best of intentions by other potions brewers. We must also assume that Snape keeps his word to Dumbledore about WereLupin even after they leave Hogwarts and indeed after Snape has become a DeathEater. (We don't hear any objections from Lucius Malfoy about a werewolf teaching Draco when Lupin is hired). I agree with Potioncat that that keeping of a promise must influence Dumbledore's later trust in Snape. Leah > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 14:59:27 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:59:27 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181118 > Alla: > And maybe what actually happened in > > addition to Sirius telling Snape how to get in was Snape knowing > > full well that he will see werewolf there and going there anyways. > > > > Leah: Hardly. Snape is not a fool, he would know he could not use > magic or escape from a fully turned werewolf. He is still bitter > about the 'Prank' in POA, many years later, in the Shrieking Shack > and later talking to Dumbledore. He fully believes this was an > attempt by James, Sirius and Lupin to have him killed or bitten and > he is quite right about Sirius. Alla: After his conversation with Lily I personally had no doubt that he at the very least had that theory about who Lupin is before prank happened. As you said, he is not a fool. I believe that he assigns that essay for Hermione to figure out who Lupin was because he figured that out himself in the similar way. As to why would he go - he considers himself DADA expert, does he not? I believe that he was daring enough to try and defeat the "dark creature". And of course he believes it was an attempt to kill him. He can do it independently of thinking that he can defeat werewolf IMO. As in - I Snape can try to do that, but how dare you Sirius tell me to go there. Oh, wait nobody told him to GO there. He was just told how to open the door, the opportunity which he appeared to be readily grasp IMO. > Leah: In what way is watching someone take a potion sadistic?? Alla: I have to take certain medication every day. And believe me if somebody would stood nearby me and insisted that I have to drink this medication while he watches, I would have told this person to go away NOW. Leah: > As I said before, this is a complex and unusual potion. It enables > the wereperson taking it to have a peaceful transformation. A > skilled potion maker like Snape could, I would think, make the > transformation rather less peaceful without that being attributable > to anything other than the complexity of the potion. He does not do > so. The fact that Lupin says that Snape makes the > potion 'perfectly' suggests that Lupin may have had less than > perfect potions made for him with the best of intentions by other > potions brewers. Alla: It is an assumption though. How do you know that the potion CAN be made less perfectly and still been safe for Lupin? For all I know the potion should be done a certain way ONLY, and to do it the other way means to make the potion uneffective. And Snape told Dumbledore that he would make it. Less perfect potions if such existed may have sabotaged the transformations and something tells me that Dumbledore would have been very unhappy if he learned about it. IMO of course. Leah: > We must also assume that Snape keeps his word to Dumbledore about > WereLupin even after they leave Hogwarts and indeed after Snape has > become a DeathEater. (We don't hear any objections from Lucius > Malfoy about a werewolf teaching Draco when Lupin is hired). I > agree with Potioncat that that keeping of a promise must influence > Dumbledore's later trust in Snape. Alla: Sure he was keeping quiet. If Dumbledore extracted a promise back then, I think he could do it later as well. JMO, Alla From leahstill at hotmail.com Tue Jan 29 16:02:00 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:02:00 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181119 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > After his conversation with Lily I personally had no doubt that he > at the very least had that theory about who Lupin is before prank > happened. As you said, he is not a fool. I believe that he assigns > that essay for Hermione to figure out who Lupin was because he > figured that out himself in the similar way. > > As to why would he go - he considers himself DADA expert, does he > not? I believe that he was daring enough to try and defeat the "dark > creature". > > And of course he believes it was an attempt to kill him. He can do > it independently of thinking that he can defeat werewolf IMO. Leah: Yes, he clearly suspected Lupin's lycanthropy before the Prank, which makes it odd that he goes down the tunnel. As Potioncat says, we need more information about the Prank. But your view must imply that Snape knew prior to entering the tunnel that Sirius was intending to kill/turn him, but that Snape believed he could best Lupin and failed. We know from Lupin in POA that all Snae saw was a glimpse of Lupin at the end of the tunnel. There was absolutely no failed attempt by Snape to defeat Lupin. Snape doesn't say to Harry, "I could have taken Lupin on, but your dad prevented me'. Instead, Snape is enraged years afterwards because he has been unexpectedly exposed to death by Sirius. (And if Snape is a DADA expert, he would know how difficult it is to defeat a werewolf) > > > Leah: In what way is watching someone take a potion sadistic?? > > Alla: > > I have to take certain medication every day. And believe me if > somebody would stood nearby me and insisted that I have to drink > this medication while he watches, I would have told this person to > go away NOW. Leah: Without there being any reason for you being watched, I would sympathise with that, though it seems more annoying than sadistic. But, as I said, Snape knows Lupin is on the turn and Harry is with him. It's part of Snape's duty to make sure Harry is not at risk from WereLupin and also Snape himself fears WereLupin and does not trust Lupin. From my own point of view, if I was giving insulin to an adult diabetic in my household, I wouldn't expect it to be injected in front of me. But if I was giving medication to a violent schizophrenic who had already put me in serious danger, and who I did not trust to take that medication, then yes, I would stand there, whether I was told to go away or not. It may be also (though this is pure assumption) that Snape is checking for any reactions to the potion. In any event, Lupin does not object. > > Alla: > > It is an assumption though. How do you know that the potion CAN be > made less perfectly and still been safe for Lupin? For all I know > the potion should be done a certain way ONLY, and to do it the other > way means to make the potion uneffective. And Snape told Dumbledore > that he would make it. Less perfect potions if such existed may have > sabotaged the transformations and something tells me that Dumbledore > would have been very unhappy if he learned about it. IMO of course. Leah: Not much to say, as we are both assuming here. > > > Alla: > > Sure he was keeping quiet. If Dumbledore extracted a promise back > then, I think he could do it later as well. Leah: But why would Snape keep his word to Dumbledore during Snape's Death Eater period, when Dumbledore has no power over him, other than that Snape believes in keeping his word? Leah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 16:51:36 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:51:36 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181120 > Leah: Yes, he clearly suspected Lupin's lycanthropy before the > Prank, which makes it odd that he goes down the tunnel. As > Potioncat says, we need more information about the Prank. Alla: Yes, Potioncat and myself are in agreement on that for the longest time. Oy, maybe she puts it in encyclopedia at least. I know I would take any piece of backstory about more background on prank. Lea: But your > view must imply that Snape knew prior to entering the tunnel that > Sirius was intending to kill/turn him, but that Snape believed he > could best Lupin and failed. Alla: Um, no I am not a subscriber to Sirius trying to kill him definitely not. In fact, I was a subscriber of Sirius being a reckless idiot for the longest time, but I have no problem believing that Sirius who played with werewolf every month lost the adequate evaluation of the danger. But now all that I am subscribing to is that Sirius talked too much. I thought maybe we will learn that Sirius FORCED Snape somehow to go to the tunnel, maybe he would told him that Lily was there or something. Nothing to the effect - Sirius just told Snape how to pass through that door. Should he have done so? No. But besides that, nobody forced Snape to go to that tunnel as far as we know. Lea: >We know from Lupin in POA that all > Snae saw was a glimpse of Lupin at the end of the tunnel. There was > absolutely no failed attempt by Snape to defeat Lupin. Snape > doesn't say to Harry, "I could have taken Lupin on, but your dad > prevented me'. Instead, Snape is enraged years afterwards because he > has been unexpectedly exposed to death by Sirius. (And if Snape is a > DADA expert, he would know how difficult it is to defeat a werewolf) Alla: Yes, for the longest time I was also thinking that he honestly believed that he was exposed to death by Sirius, whether that was the intention or not. I am not anymore. As to whether Snape wanted to take on Lupin, well considering the fact that I believe that he knew what Remus was AND went there anyways, um, what else should I believe? I mean before book 6 I only suspected that he at least had an idea - there was that essay that he assigned, etc, after book 7 I am pretty sure. Does that make sense to you? I mean, I loved that speculation that he wanted to kill Lupin, but even if he did not, he KNEW and he WENT THERE. If he did not want to take Lupin on, why did he go then? Maybe he wanted to take a look at transformed werewolf, who knows, but there is no way I would blame anybody else for that. >Leah: >It may be also (though > this is pure assumption) that Snape is checking for any reactions to > the potion. In any event, Lupin does not object. Alla: I thought he enjoyed having a power over Lupin and of course in front of Harry Lupin would not object IMO. > > > Alla: > > > > Sure he was keeping quiet. If Dumbledore extracted a promise back > > then, I think he could do it later as well. > > Leah: But why would Snape keep his word to Dumbledore during Snape's > Death Eater period, when Dumbledore has no power over him, other > than that Snape believes in keeping his word? Alla: Oh, even though I believe that Snape's life was defined by his grudge and his love for Lily, even I do not think that he was thinking about Lupin 24/7. His DE ONLY period was pretty short, wasn't it? Couple years at most, maybe a bit more than that if he was recruited at school? And then it is back to Dumbledore, where yes I doubt he would have dared to tell Lupin's secret under Dumbledore's nose till Lupin gave him a lovely opening. But as I said, even such Snape's hater as I am, I am forced to give him a credit for saving Lupin at the end. And that is defying Dumbledore nothing less. I believe it shows to me that at the end he finally let his grudge go in favor of saving people, whether he believed those people wronged him or not. But to me the whole point of that lovely moment is to show growth on Snape's behalf, not that he was like this all the time of his life. Again IMO, I am not asking anybody to agree with me and know that many people view Snape's whole life in much noble view than I do :) Alla From leahstill at hotmail.com Tue Jan 29 18:19:49 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:19:49 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181121 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: >> Um, no I am not a subscriber to Sirius trying to kill him definitely > not. In fact, I was a subscriber of Sirius being a reckless idiot > for the longest time, but I have no problem believing that Sirius > who played with werewolf every month lost the adequate evaluation > of the danger. But now all that I am subscribing to is that Sirius > talked too much. I thought maybe we will learn that Sirius FORCED > Snape somehow to go to the tunnel, maybe he would told him that Lily > was there or something. Nothing to the effect - Sirius just told > Snape how to pass through that door. Should he have done so? No. But > besides that, nobody forced Snape to go to that tunnel as far as we > know. Leah: No, I would agree that Snape was not forced to go down the tunnel, but I never subscribed to the idea that he might have been forced. Lupin in POA says that Sirius thought it would be 'amusing' to tell Snape how to get through the Willow. which suggests more than a casual comment, snd IMO implies that Sirius meant Snape to follow through on this idea, and get the shock of his life (at least) when he met WereLupin. Which is either reckless idiocy or criminal negligence depending on your evaluation of Sirius' mental state. It doesn't explain why Snape would go down the tunnel, or why (since we're agreed he's not a fool) he would trust the suggestion of someone who's been tormenting him for several years. Lupin said that Snape had seen him with Madam Pomfrey, so perhaps Snape thought she would have restrained Lupin in some way prior to transformation (as Snape binds Lupin with ropes in the Shrieking Shack). Without more information, it's hard to tell- perhaps we have just fallen into a plot hole. I just get the strong impression from all we see of Snape's subsequent behaviour that he was genuinely shocked and terrified to see WereLupin. > > > >Leah: > > >It may be also (though > > this is pure assumption) that Snape is checking for any reactions > to > > the potion. In any event, Lupin does not object. > > > Alla: > > I thought he enjoyed having a power over Lupin and of course in > front of Harry Lupin would not object IMO. Leah: Lupin could have asked for a word outside. > > Leah: But why would Snape keep his word to Dumbledore during > Snape's > > Death Eater period, when Dumbledore has no power over him, other > > than that Snape believes in keeping his word? > > Alla: > > Oh, even though I believe that Snape's life was defined by his > grudge and his love for Lily, even I do not think that he was > thinking about Lupin 24/7. His DE ONLY period was pretty short, > wasn't it? Couple years at most, maybe a bit more than that if he > was recruited at school? Yes, it must have been short. But knowledge is power, as they say, and if Snape is ambitious, any useful information he can pass on, will further his ambition. Since Dumbledore is Voldyenemy No. 1 and Hogwarts one of Voldemort's prime targets, news of Lupin's lycanthropy could prove quite useful. Letting it be known to parents that Dumbledore had admitted a werewolf child to the school, and that a child had nearly been killed as a result, is not going to increase Dumbledore's popularity especially if further enquiry revealed that the werewolf and his friends had wandered the school grounds and Hogsmeade, having a few 'near misses'. So if Snape didn't tell, one has to assume it is because he believed in keeping his word. He certainly didn't owe Dumbledore or the Marauders anything at that stage. > > But as I said, even such Snape's hater as I am, I am forced to give > him a credit for saving Lupin at the end. And that is defying > Dumbledore nothing less. > > I believe it shows to me that at the end he finally let his grudge > go in favor of saving people, whether he believed those people > wronged him or not. But to me the whole point of that lovely moment > is to show growth on Snape's behalf, not that he was like this all > the time of his life. Again IMO, I am not asking anybody to agree > with me and know that many people view Snape's whole life in much > noble view than I do :) > Leah I agree it shows growth - he is saving Lupin as a human being despite the past. I don't think Snape would always have been this noble, but I would always say he was a better person than the Marauders- know you won't agree there :) Leah From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 18:33:23 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:33:23 -0000 Subject: Invisibility Cloak WAS: Re: Tonks as Auror and aurors in general In-Reply-To: <5d7223330801282039y4ac815f6xd05b3b1135a1f0a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181122 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meann ortiz" wrote: > My reply: > Maybe Xeno was once again quoting the "mythical" definition of > the Hallows. We know that the Hallows' natures are different in > real life, as evidenced by the Wand's supposed invincibility, > when we know there is more to it than that. =) zanooda: Yes, I also think that in reality the Hallows were not as perfect as the tale wanted us to believe - you know, the Wand invincible, the Cloak infallible, bluh-bluh-bluh. DD defeated GG, master of the Wand, and Moody could see through the Cloak. But, OTOH, as someone mentioned (sorry, can't find now who) earlier, the DEs didn't manage to summon the Cloak with the Summoning charm ("The Missing Mirror"), so it seems that Xeno was right and spells don't work on it, or at least some of them don't. For now I like the most one of Finwitch's explanations - "homenum revelio" is not supposed to work on the Cloak, but DD's "homenum revelio" worked, because he used the Elder Wand. After all, "reparo" was not supposed to work on Harry's wand either, but it did, when Harry used the Elder Wand. That would also explain why other characters never attempted "homenum revelio" when they suspected Cloaked!Harry - because it's not supposed to work on cloaks :-). From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 18:41:38 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:41:38 -0000 Subject: Life's Elixor or Shrinking Solution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181123 > Carol, who still wonders why a Shrinking Solution would turn Trevor > into a tadpole instead of a smaller toad and wonders whether JKR is > confusing shrinking with rejuvenation Mike: I think JKR's mistake was not actually shrinking Trevor. She probably thought it was cute having Trevor reverse aging, tadpoles are cute, right? If they really had a potion that reversed aging, wouldn't you think we'd have a bunch of buff 21-year-old-looking witches and wizards all over the WW? ;-) Mike, looking down at his 52-y.o. expansive mid-section, thinking he wouldn't mind some of *that* shrinking solution, whichever way it actually works :D From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 29 18:42:31 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:42:31 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181124 > Lea: > But your > > view must imply that Snape knew prior to entering the tunnel that > > Sirius was intending to kill/turn him, but that Snape believed he > > could best Lupin and failed. > Alla: Should he have done so? No. But > besides that, nobody forced Snape to go to that tunnel as far as we > know. Potioncat: The way I read the memory in DH, Snape had suspected for some time that Lupin was a werewolf. So, why did he follow? Someone suggested that he expected to find a contained werewolf. After all, if the Marauders could go visit him safely, then Snape should be able to as well. He was expecting to see a werewolf, not encounter one. Also, I've granted before that Sirius acted both foolishly and impulsively. I can grant that Severus did the same. They were 16 and I know what a 16 year-old can be like. (My son's 18 now and not much better.) Adult Snape may still think that Sirius wanted him to be killed--- Sirius doesn't do anything to prove differently in the Shrieking Shack. That's what Snape believes. The thing is, Severus doesn't seem too upset about it when he talks to Lily, yet he's beside himself about it in PoA. Of course, by then he thinks Sirius has also betrayed Lily. > Alla: > > I thought he enjoyed having a power over Lupin and of course in > front of Harry Lupin would not object IMO. Potioncat: It's the first Hogsmeade weekend. Potter isn't allowed to go. Lupin has recently embarassed Snape by suggesting Neville's Gran!Snape Boggart. First read, we think Snape is mad about the Boggart. (Well, he is, but there is so much more.) Snape's year during PoA is dedicated to protecting Potter, even more than before--because now Black is after Potter, and Black's old friend is at Hogwarts. Even without reason to distrust Lupin, Lupin is a werewolf and will be transforming shortly. So, Snape shows up with the potion, and to his surprise, Potter is in Lupin's office. Lupin will change shortly and Potter is in his office. Snape wants to see Lupin drink the potion, because Potter is in the office. Potter is in the office with a soon-to-be werewolf. What's the issue? Well, that explanation and I'm a nurse--I always watch patients take medicine when I give it to them. Sometimes makes for uncomfortable moments. > > > Alla: > > > > > > Sure he was keeping quiet. If Dumbledore extracted a promise > back > > > then, I think he could do it later as well. Potioncat: So the credit isn't Snape's for keeping a promise, it's DD's for forcing it? Actually, I'd like to know more. We're only told that he forbade Severus to tell. Could mean anything. I of course, take it to mean, that Snape agreed and Snape kept his word. Alla: > > I believe it shows to me that at the end he finally let his grudge > go in favor of saving people, whether he believed those people > wronged him or not. But to me the whole point of that lovely moment > is to show growth on Snape's behalf, not that he was like this all > the time of his life. Again IMO, I am not asking anybody to agree > with me and know that many people view Snape's whole life in much > noble view than I do :) Potioncat: Agreeing to both parts of this--I think. ;-) From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 29 18:46:32 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:46:32 -0000 Subject: Life's Elixor or Shrinking Solution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181125 > Mike: > Mike, looking down at his 52-y.o. expansive mid-section, thinking he > wouldn't mind some of *that* shrinking solution, whichever way it > actually works :D Potioncat: Yes, many of us would. But one would have to be "very" careful where one put it, and to not let any of it spill or drip. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Jan 29 19:12:49 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:12:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Life's Elixor or Shrinking Solution? References: Message-ID: <001801c862aa$f17750b0$6501a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 181126 >> Mike: >> Mike, looking down at his 52-y.o. expansive mid-section, thinking he >> wouldn't mind some of *that* shrinking solution, whichever way it >> actually works :D > > > > Potioncat: > Yes, many of us would. But one would have to be "very" careful where > one put it, and to not let any of it spill or drip. Shelley: OMG!!! You two have just put the most wicked of scenes in my mind- a family fight, a revengeful wife putting a drop of that on her husband's you-know-where, and the poor guy trying to explain at Saint Mungo's just what had happened to his "thing". Or that husband putting it on his wife's mouth to get even. LOL! Oh, the things one could do with magic in the HP world to get revenge on a family member! That would make the walnut up the nose seem tame, IMHO. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 29 19:43:03 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:43:03 -0000 Subject: Life's Elixor or Shrinking Solution? In-Reply-To: <001801c862aa$f17750b0$6501a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181127 > > Potioncat: > > Yes, many of us would. But one would have to be "very" careful where > > one put it, and to not let any of it spill or drip. > > > Shelley: > OMG!!! You two have just put the most wicked of scenes in my mind- a family > fight, a revengeful wife... . Or that husband... Potioncat: Erm, Mike and I are just good friends... From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 19:51:34 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:51:34 -0000 Subject: Life's Elixor or Shrinking Solution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181128 > > Mike, looking down at his 52-y.o. expansive mid-section, > > thinking he wouldn't mind some of *that* shrinking solution, > > whichever way it actually works :D > > > > Potioncat: > Yes, many of us would. But one would have to be "very" careful > where one put it, and to not let any of it spill or drip. Mike: Well, I wasn't thinking of it as topical. But if that were the case, then Snape's "antidote" was too. That tells me Hermione was a fool settling for the boomslang skin on her raid. Think of what she could make on the black market with that antidote. :)) Mike, Now the picture of Hermione as Madeline Kahn in "Young Frankenstein" with Ron as Peter Broyle flashes before my mind - "Yes, Yes, YES, ... Oh sweet victory of life I've found you" From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 20:38:21 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:38:21 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181129 > Potioncat: > The way I read the memory in DH, Snape had suspected for some time > that Lupin was a werewolf. So, why did he follow? Alla: Yes, a million dollar question that would bug me for a years to come, snort. Please JKR do tell us your answer, I want to know what you think. Potioncat: > Someone suggested that he expected to find a contained werewolf. > After all, if the Marauders could go visit him safely, then Snape > should be able to as well. He was expecting to see a werewolf, not > encounter one. Alla: Totally possible. The thing is - still stupid and still Snape's decision IMO. Potioncat: > Also, I've granted before that Sirius acted both foolishly and > impulsively. I can grant that Severus did the same. They were 16 and > I know what a 16 year-old can be like. (My son's 18 now and not much > better.) Alla: Absolutely and by the way, if I look at Snape's decision to go there and if he acted foolishly and impulsively, I am NOT blaming him for it. I mean, I am trying to say that I do not think that acting foolishly and impulsively is a grave offense for teenager - be it Snape or Sirius. But when it is being told that Snape **going** there is Sirius' fault and Sirius' fault only, I am sorry, no way, no how, not in my book ( and this is not a reply to you dearest just general remark). Sirius **told** Snape how to get there, that's all he did for all I know. As far as I am concerned, after book 7, love Sirius' character as I am, Remus had an absolute right to tell him go jump in the lake after what he did and never take him back as a friend. He betrayed his friend I think. Did he mean it? Probably not, but he should have think before he spoke, I think. But as to Snape? He did not do anything to him Sirius, I mean. He told him how to pass by that door, that's all. Everything else - Snape's decision IMO. Potioncat: > Adult Snape may still think that Sirius wanted him to be killed--- > Sirius doesn't do anything to prove differently in the Shrieking > Shack. That's what Snape believes. > > The thing is, Severus doesn't seem too upset about it when he talks > to Lily, yet he's beside himself about it in PoA. Of course, by then > he thinks Sirius has also betrayed Lily. Alla: OMG. I appreciate it very much, but do you realize what you just wrote? I did not make the connection till I just read it. But you were always one of my inspirations of trying to look at my favorites more or less objectively, so I should not be surprised. ( NO I am not claiming that I always look at my favorites objectively, but I think you do it very often and I am trying to :)) He indeed does not seem too upset there contrary to Shack, doesn't he? As far as I am concerned that further diminishes his claim that Sirius tried to kill him. Maybe he knew full well that he is as much to blame for knowing whom he can meet there and still going. And yes, I totally can believe that in his mind his rage at Sirius was really for supposedly betraying Lily and it somehow substituted in believing that Sirius was trying to kill him instead. > > > > Alla: > > > > > > > > Sure he was keeping quiet. If Dumbledore extracted a promise > > back > > > > then, I think he could do it later as well. > > Potioncat: > So the credit isn't Snape's for keeping a promise, it's DD's for > forcing it? Actually, I'd like to know more. We're only told that he > forbade Severus to tell. Could mean anything. I of course, take it to > mean, that Snape agreed and Snape kept his word. Alla: Oh no I am sure he did keep his word till the occassion arised that is. I mean, look if Snape would have never told, I could have no reason to doubt that he agreed and kept his word ever since, but since he did told eventually, I believe that he was biting his time. And I am not sure if I can say that extracting word from Snape was exactly to Dumbledore's credit per se. Not that I think that he should have let Remus' suffer because of Sirius' idiocy and Snape erm... curiosity, but I am just saying that I do not believe that forcing student not to tell can be said to that Headmaster's credit, if that makes sense. >> Potioncat: > Agreeing to both parts of this--I think. ;-) > Alla: Well, look if I am slapped with hard cold canon fact, how can I deny it? :) Him saving Lupin is not exactly open to interpretation :) Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 21:14:38 2008 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:14:38 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 16/17 - post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181130 > Alla: > > Um, he basically convinced two human beings that they NEED to die. > IMO it is very sinister, not to mention manipulative, but that's > nothing new to me. > > I mean, can you show me ONE healthy human being that wants to die? a_svirn: Perhaps they have been senile any time these last couple of centuries? Judging by the brilliance of Dumbledore's plan, I'd say his own mental capabilities had ever so slightly deteriorated by the end. Just think how much worse it would have been with 650-year-olds! a_svirn. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 21:17:19 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:17:19 -0000 Subject: House-Elves yet again (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181131 Carol earlier: > > Nevertheless, House-Elf servitude or ownership or whatever it is did> not begin with a law declaring all House-Elves to be "slaves" or > property. > > a_svirn: > I never said it did. (And do you know of any slavery in real life > that began with a law proclaiming slaves property?) All I said is > that elves are put under double constraints: magical and legal. Carol responds: My apologies for misunderstanding you. I'm glad we agree that House-Elf servitude began with an enchantment. Whether that enchantment was placed on them by Wizards taking advantage of the House-Elves' inborn desire to serve or is part of the House-Elves' nature is the question, and I don't think that canon answers it for us. I think, however, based on folklore (and I'm thinking more of "The Elves and the Shoemaker" than of hobs) that it's part of their nature. See my suggestion earlier that Wizards decided to withhold the giving of clothes, causing a particular House-Elf and his or her descendants to be essentially bound to that house and family. Carol earlier: > It began with an enchantment. Whether that enchantment is part of House-Elf nature or was imposed on them by Wizards, we don't know. All *I* know is that in folklore, elves voluntarily serve humans until they are given clothes. > > a_svirn: > And as far as I know they are not bound in folklore. Carol: Which is exactly what I said. In folklore, Elves serve a human being (of their own volition) until they're given clothes, at which point, they leave. Whether they serve another human being or family is not, so far as I know, specified in the stories, which are told from the human point of view. Again, see "The Elves and the Shoemaker," the best-known story of this type that I'm aware of. a_svirn: Which, considering the issue in point, is a crucial difference. Carol: Of course. We're dealing with JKR's alteration of folklore. But what I'm trying to say is that the enchantment in which giving clothes (not cloths, which is what Kreacher wears) to Elves predates their being bound to a particular family or house. *It's part of theior nature, along with the desire to serve,* if we accept folklore as an explanation for these imaginary beings. Elves in folklore serve humans voluntarily. House-Elves also want to serve humans (specifically Wizards). Both sets of magical creatures seem to have no other purpose. The only difference is that the House-Elves are bound to serve a particular family until they are given clothes. Perhaps the folklore Elves are also bound to serve a particular family, the difference being that they bound themselves. When Elves in folklore are given clothes, they probably peek in the window of the nearest (Muggle) family and decide whether they're going to serve them instead. Or perhaps they go off and live in the woods off nuts and berries. Who knows? They certainly don't go around as "Free Elves" seeking employment from (Wizarding) families who will pay them, as Dobby does. a_svirn:> > Also the cloth thing from folklore was not for sacking unwanted servants but for getting rid off domestic pests. Carol: No, it isn't. You're thinking of hobs. The shoemaker and his wife gave the Elves little shoes and clothes as a reward or a thank-you gift, and the Elves stopped working for them. Their (voluntary) service was ended. The Elves were certainly not domestic pests. They were helping the shoemaker with his work. Here's a link to the Grimm's fairytale version of the story, since you're apparently unfamiliar with it: http://www.authorama.com/grimms-fairy-tales-39.html asvirn: When hobs were making themselves nuisances (like gnomes in the WW) they were got rid off this way. Carol: But we're not talking about hobs. We're talking about Elves--who are not pests and want to serve humans. In the folktale, they cease to do so, or at least cease to serve the shoemaker and his wife, after they're given clothes. But JKR's Elves still want to serve humans even after they're given clothes. Winky wants to return to her master; Dobby goes looking for work with Wizard families and ends up working for Dumbledore, with voluntary service to Harry on the side. Carol earlier: > > I'm not sure when or how House-Elves as a species originated, but when we see elves in folklore, the giving of clothes is already the means of ending their association with a particular set of humans. Clothes may be a cultural artifact (I'm using the American spelling)--not necessarily a Wizarding artifact, but a human one--but maybe House-Elves originated at a time when human culture, including clothes, was well-established. > > a_svirn: > So? It wasn't established as a part of nature, was it? Wizards are not born wearing cloths? Carol again: *Of course* they're not born wearing clothes. The Elves in the folktale are naked. I'm talking about *the nature of Elves* including an *enchantment* that they're born with: If they volunteer their services to a Wizard (as any House-Elf will) or if they are born to a House-Elf who is already serving a particular Wizard, they are magically bound to that Wizard and his family. Giving them clothes--not loincloths or tea towels or pillowcases but actual clothes, even a sock--ends the enchantment (breaks the spell). It has nothing to do with clothes being unnatural or Elves or Wizards being born wearing clothes. It has nothing to do with Nature, as in trees and flowers and rocks, as opposed to manmade objects like houses and clothes. I'm talking about *the nature of House-Elves* as magical creatures with magical properties, *including* an enchantment that "frees" them (unbinds them from their service to a particular family) when they're given clothes. A part of Nature and a part of House-Elf nature are not the same thing, any more than human nature and the nature that you encounter on a nature walk are the same thing. > > > Carol: > > We need not assume that some Wizard somehow enchanted all House- Elves to work for Wizards and be freed by clothes. I think that the desire to work for humans (specifically Wizards in JKR's version of the story) is part of their nature. > a_svirn: > You are persistently substitute *owning* with *serving*. Carol: No, I don't. I use "serving" for both voluntary and involuntary service, and "owning" for what you call "slavery." I *am* avoiding that term because it applies to humans and has nothing to do with House-Elf servitude, voluntary or involuntary. I am trying to get away from the "slavery or not slavery" argument and examine House-Elf servitude as it is actually depicted in the books and to explore its possible origins. Also, semantics has nothing to do with my point, to which you did not respond. It would be difficult to confuse serving, which means working for someone else and helping them, willingly or unwillingly (we all "serve," BTW, whether in our jobs or in our families or in the military service) with ownership, which means the condition of belonging to someone. House-Elves either serve or want to serve Wizards, whether they are owned by them or not. Again, I think that owning of House-Elves must have begun with voluntary service, with the House-Elf becoming bound to a family when he or she was not given clothes. Once the House-Elf and his or her descendants became, in essence, part of the household, the Wizards regarded them as property to be passed on to their descendants and the Elves themselves felt honor-bound to serve that particular family. All I'm saying is that the enchantment that "freed" the House-Elf by giving him clothes probably was not placed by any Wizard. (How could it have been, if it affects all House-Elves, even those who were yet unborn at the time?) I think that Wizards took advantage of the House-Elves desire to serve them (and who wouldn't?) and chose not to give clothes to House-Elves that they wanted to keep in the family once they found out about that enchantment. And House-Elves who were happy serving those families would not have wanted to be given clothes because it would mean that they had failed to please their masters. a_svirn: > Without bondage the picture you are painting (family retainers etc.) is quite a happy one. But we know better. We've seen elves constrained against their will. Carol: By the enchantment that forces them to punish themselves when they disobey their masters, not by servitude itself. BTW, human beings who are not slaves are also constrained against their will all the time by such things as deadlines and tax laws. The penalty for disobeying our masters (though we don't use the term) is being fired or imprisoned. > > > Carol: > As for the enchantment that "frees" them when they're given clothes, why would any Wizard want to do that to his own Elf or any other? > > a_svirn: > Why indeed? So much more convenient to keep them bound. Carol: I agree. I think that not giving them clothes is what "bound" them in the first place. (See above.) But I meant that no Wizard would have created the clothing enchantment (which "freed" rather than bound the Elves). I think its part of House-Elf nature. (I don't think that House-Elves existed during the Pleistocene. They would have come into being no earlier than the New Stone Age, with the advent of--wait for it--houses.) > > Carol: > > Forgive me for saying it yet again, but House-Elves are magical creatures, just like dragons and Hippogriffs and Merpeople. They are not human. > > a_svirn: > I readily forgive you, but it is quite unnecessary for you to remind me of that. I have never denied the fact. Carol: Good. But you do understand, I hope, that I am differentiating between House-Elves as magical creatures and Wizards, who are not "creatures" but people. House-Elves are bound by enchantments that don't apply to human beings and their psychology differs from that of human beings, the desire to serve Wizards being the most important component. It seems to me that, while you do acknowledge that they're not human, you're not taking their nature as nonhuman magical creatures into account in your arguments. Carol earlier: > > Winky wants to be owned. > > a_svirn: > When did she ever say so? She only wants to serve the Crouches. It doesn't bother her that she's owned so long that she can have her wish. But if she hated the Crouches she would be as unwilling to be owned as Dobby and Kreacher. Carol: Are you forgetting that Winky regards being "freed" and given clothes as a disgrace? That, combined with the desire to return to Mr. Crouch, which you acknowledge, amounts to wanting to be owned. Dobby (not Kreacher) is the only House-Elf who considers his condition to be slavery and who regards being "freed" as anything other than a badge of shame. Kreacher's state of mind is very different, and he should not be classed with Dobby as an Elf who wants to be "free." > Carol earlier: > > Kreacher has no objection to being owned. > > a_svirn: > He does, and says so very emphatically at that: "I won't! I won't". And Dumbledore commented that Kreacher does not want to pass in Harry's ownership. Carol again: He "won't" serve Harry (willingly), nor does he want to be owned *by Harry.* But it's not an objection to either serving a master he respects *or* being owned. Unlike Dobby, he does not want to be a "Free Elf." He simply wants a master (owner, if you will) whom he can respect, one who honors the traditions of the family he wants to serve. It has nothing to do with ownership per se. (And, no. I'm not confusing owning with serving. Kreacher wants to do one, as long as he has a master he respects, and doesn't give a flying fig about the other. Otherwise, he'd be upset about being owned instead of being owned by the wrong person. He wants to be owned by *and* to serve the Blacks. What he does *not* want and never once expresses a desire for, is to be free.) I've been too lazy to look up this quotation, which I think settles the matter once and for all, but here it is. Sirius Black, the "criminal" and renegade who "is not worthy to wipe the slime from his mother's boots," according to Kreacher, says to Hermione, who has suggested setting Kreacher free, after noting that it's too dangerous to free him because he knows about the Order, "Anyway, the shock would kill him. You suggest to him that he leaves this house, and see how he takes it" (110). So, unless Sirius is mistaken, and given Kreacher's devotion to his dead mistress, I don't think he is, Kreacher does not want to be "free." He wants to "serve the House of Black," which he can only do if Sirius Black owns him. *That*, along with Harry's perceived unworthiness, is why Kreacher "won't! won't! won't!" Carol earlier: > As we see, once he perceives Harry as worthy of his respect, he has no problem serving him (or being owned by him). Essentially, House-Elf ownership is a given like the desire to serve Wizards. > > a_svirn: > I don't understand this phrase. Carol: "A given" means something that can be taken for granted. But, to tell the truth, I don't know what I meant, either. I think I meant that Kreacher is unconcerned with being owned, which he takes for granted. Forget that I said it. I'll try to word my ideas more precisely, in the active voice, next time! :-) Carol earlier: > He simply does not want to be owned by *HBP!Harry.* It's perfectly okay with him to be owned by DH!Harry, just as it was perfectly okay with him to be owned, as his ancestors were, by the Black family. > > a_svirn: > I like your *onlys* and *simplys*. Kreacher may not object to be owned by people whom he wants to serve, yes. But he clearly wants to make his own choices. Which he's quite unable to do while he is a bound slave. Carol: Sorry about the "onlys" and "simplys." But I still say that Kreacher has no problem serving DH!Harry (or post-"Kreaacher's Tale" Harry), as we can easily confirm with reference to the end of that chapter and subsequent ones. Nor does he have any problem with the concept of ownership. As far as I can see, all he wants is a master worthy of his service. To speculate for a moment, it probably helps that Harry is the heir of the House of Black and is in 12 GP (Kreacher's home) when the events of "Kreacher's Tale" occur. Once Harry becomes associated in Kreacher's mind, through the lockets, with Regulus, Kreacher can see himself as having not only a worthy owner (who is aiding Master Regulus and helping Kreacher to carry out Master Regulus's last order) but one who is, by association and informal adoption, a Black. In any case, as I've already shown through the Sirius quotation, Kreacher doesn't want to be free. As for "won't! won't! won't!" and his expressed preference for the Malfoy boy (a Black descendant) over Harry, he's just upset that Sirius's will passed him along to the unworthy Harry rather than Miss Bellatrix. Kreacher *does* think about service and whom he wants to serve ("the Noble House of Black). He doesn't think about ownership, per se (that's Dumbledore's word). Note that he always uses the terms "master" and "mistress," not "owner." He's thinking about the person whom he must serve and not his status as "slave" or property. (Again, he takes ownership for granted.) Question: Do you really think that "freeing" Kreacher, which can only be done by giving him clothes and which he would regard, per Sirius and what we've seen of House-Elves in general, as a disgrace, would enable him to serve the master of mistress of his choice? If he went, as a disgraced House-Elf, to Bellatrix or to Narcissa, do you think they wouldn't abuse him? Do you think they would pay him? Just possibly, if he bound himself to serve them, the enchantment would start all over again. > a_svirn: > That's the first time I heard that Peeves is "naturally" connected to the castle. I would have thought he's connected supernaturally. Carol: Hm. Then maybe we should use "supernatural" rather than "natural" with reference to the nature of "House-Elf magic? But the problem is, I'm talking about the nature of House-Elves and you're talking about nature as a natural phenomenon. > Carol earlier: > We're not talking about human evolution or anything else that's subject to a scientifc explanation. > > a_svirn: > And yet, you are trying to explain away their bondage scientifically as though it is some kind of an instinct. Carol: No, I'm not. I'm talking about their apparently inborn desire to serve (which need not be labeled with any such scientific term as "instinct") combined with an enchantment that binds them to serve Wizards until they're given clothes. I am also exploring the relationship between JKR's House-Elves and Elves in folklore. Where science comes into that, I have no idea. BTW, I don't know about you, but I see my own position as subtly shifting thanks to this discussion as the inferences I draw from canon are becoming clearer to me. That, I think is the point of this list; not to convince others of our correctness but to clarify our own interpretations. > a_svirn: > To quote Snape I see no difference. "To be a part of nature" is opposed "to be a part of culture". You are talking about essential qualities of house elves. Carol: And "essential qualities of House-Elves"--their nature--has nothing to do with clothing being a cultural artifact, a manmade, artificial, nonnatural artifact. You're saying that they can't be born wearing clothes. I say that's both obvious and irrelevant to the *enchantment* that they appear to be born with, which amounts to what happens when they're given clothes. The *enchantment,* like the desire to serve, appears to be part of their nature. We know of no House-Elf who is not bound by it. It's universal for House-Elves. Therefore, "natural" as in clothing is unnatural is beside the point. "Natural" as in inborn or an essential quality (as in, "housework comes *naturally* to them") is what I'm talking about here. There *is* a difference between your use of the word "natural" and mine we're not talking about the same thing. Not being born with clothing has nothing to do with the enchantment, which I'm postulating as a natural (inborn) part of their being. It's as much a part of being a House-Elf as pointy ears and no hair. Let's take a human infant, Muggle or Wizard. What happens when he's given clothes? Nothing (except a socially acceptable, comfortable, temporarily clean infant). Put that human infant in a tea towel and what happens? Nothing (except that the infant looks like a miniature ancient Greek or Roman rather than a modern child). Now take a House-Elf infant. What happens if you dress him in clothing rather than a tea towel from birth or soon afterwards? We don't know because it doesn't happen in canon. Would he be "free" from birth and evicted from his master's household? That would be disastrous unless his mother was also evictee, and not ideal even then. What happens when you give a grown House-Elf clothes? Well, we know, don't we? They're "free" to work for some other Wizard but not to return to their masters, if Winky is any indication. So the clothing enchantment is part of their nature but no part of human nature. And it has nothing whatever to do with clothing being "unnatural." a_svirn: A desire to serve can be an essential quality. And is, in this particular case. Carol: Agreed. It's part of their nature. a_svirn: The established bond with other species cannot. Especially if it is involved cultural artefacts. Carol: But I'm not talking about "the established bond with other species." I'm talking about the enchantment that "frees" them when they're given clothing. The fact that clothing is a cultural artifact is completely irrelevant. Are they born subject to the enchantment? I'd say they are. And if that's the case, it's as much a part of their nature, as much an essential quality, as the desire to serve. > > > Carol: > (Houses are also cultural artifacts that don't exist in nature as you're using the term, but House-Elves are obviously associated with them.) > > a_svirn: > So are humans. I can't say I see your point. Humans may be associated with their houses, but no one ever said that houses are a part of human nature. Carol: My point is that House-Elves are by their nature associated with houses, which are cultural artifacts. They have no other reason for being except to serve in Wizard houses, and the fact that houses don't exist in nature doesn't mean that working in houses isn't part of *their* nature. House-Elf nature, Mother Nature. Two different things. The same goes for clothing. Both clothing and houses are associated with the essential nature of House-Elves, one as the means of "freeing" them from the enchantment they're born with, the other as their reason for being. As for houses not being part of human nature, we humans do have the need for food, clothing, and shelter. But I doubt that there were Cave-Elves. House-Elves would have come into being along with or after houses came into being. Carol, ending the post here because it's already out of hand From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 21:22:21 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:22:21 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181132 Alla wrote: > > Oh, I do not know. Snape insisting Lupin drink the potion in front > of him stroke me as quite sadistic. Carol responds: I don't see how that's sadistic. He doesn't trust Lupin, whom he thinks is helping the "murderer" Sirius Black get into the school, and he certainly doesn't want Lupin turning into a werewolf without the potion. I think he's like a doctor making sure that his patient takes his medicine. Carol, admitting that the potion is nasty-tasting but that can't be the reason that Snape wants to be sure that Lupin takes it From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Jan 29 21:21:03 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:21:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Life's Elixor or Shrinking Solution? References: Message-ID: <02e601c862bc$dc9560d0$6501a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 181133 >> > Potioncat: >> > Yes, many of us would. But one would have to be "very" careful where >> > one put it, and to not let any of it spill or drip. >> >> >> Shelley: >> OMG!!! You two have just put the most wicked of scenes in my mind- a > family >> fight, a revengeful wife... . Or that husband... > > > Potioncat: > Erm, Mike and I are just good friends... Shelley: I don't see where I implied anything about list member relationships! I was just thinking ways to curse other wizards that one might be angry at. What ran through my mind was Lorena Bobbett, who took a knife to her husband's body part, and acknowledged that wizards get angry and vengeful too, only their crimes of passion would be done using magical means. Seems to me that a Shrinking Solution applied to a male's organ might accomplish the same effect of rendering it ineffective to be used on other females without all the blood and mess that occurs when one chooses to use a meat cleaver. From cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 21:18:27 2008 From: cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com (Cassandra Wladyslava) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:18:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: PS/SS chapters 16/17 - post DH look In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181134 Bex: I think that DD knew Voldemort had infiltrated Hogwarts. By the end of the year, he probably knew it was Quirrell. The main reasons I think this are: Alla: Um, I think he knew as well and I think the most obvious hint is when we hear him telling Snape to keep an eye on Quirrell in Prince's memory. Cassie: I don't think this necessarily proves that he knew LV was posessing Quirrell. I took it to mean he was suspicious of Quirrell stealing the stone for HIMSELF. EDIT: (After reading some more of Chapter 17) I'm wondering about this part: "It's almost like he thought I had the right to face *Voldemort *if I could..." (Harry, SS pag 302) Not Quirrel. Voldemort. How could Dumbledore have thought Harry had any chance of facing Voldemort unless he knew/suspected it was Voldemort who was trying to steal the stone? Either way, it still begs the question: Why didn't Dumbledore DO something about it? Like confront/deal with Quirrell/LV? Certainly if he knew LV had infilrated Hogwarts he'd want to keep him far away from Harry and the other children - never mind the stone. Alla: Right so here are my questions. Why would he give Harry invisibility cloak with the note just in case if he did not intend for them to go there? Why, why would he tell Harry how to work the Mirror of Erised if he wanted for Harry to have nothing to do with it? Cassie: "D'you think he meant you to do it?" said Ron. "Sending you your father's cloak and everything?" "Well," Hermione exploded, "if he did - I mean to say - that's terrible - you could have been killed." "No, it isn't," said Harry thoughtfully,"He's a funny man, Dumbledore. I think he sort of wanted to give me a chance. I think he knows more or less everything that goes on here, you know. I reckon he had a pretty good idea we were going to try, and instead of stopping us, he ust taught us enough to help. I don't think it was an accident he let me find out how the mirror worked. It's almost like he thought I had the right to face Voldemort if I could..." "Yeah, Dumbledore's off his rocker, all right," said Ron proudly. (SS pg 302) Of course, that doesn't ENTIRELY reveal Dumbledore's intentions. But from that little peice of canon, it seems that at least Harry thought Dumbledore meant him to find out all this stuff. Maybe he (Dumbledore) didn't actually expect Harry to try and fight Quirrellmort...just figure out about the stone, etc...I don't know. Alla: Um, he basically convinced two human beings that they NEED to die. IMO it is very sinister, not to mention manipulative, but that's nothing new to me. I mean, can you show me ONE healthy human being that wants to die? I am not talking about not being afraid to die. Many people are not afraid of death, but I am yet to meet one healthy person who expressed a desire to die. IMO Flamel's age shows that he had no desire to die whatsoever, not yet IMO. And I am not even talking about immortality, his wife is with him, so it is not like he does not have anybody to share long life with. He invented the stone , right? And here comes Dumbledore and says ? OOPS, you lived enough, stone must be destroyed. I don't know, sounds sinister to me. Cassie: >From SS page 297: "They have enough Elixer to set their affairs in order and then, yes, they will die"...."To one as young as you, I'm sure it seems incredible, but to Nicholas and Perenelle, it really is like going to bed after a very *very* long day." - Albus Dumbledore It is true that most healthy people do not WANT to die, but not many people live to be 658/665. In this case, I can sort of see someone being willing to die and not being suicidal or depressed or in pain or having any other health/mental problem that would make them want to die. We also don't know WHO decided the stone should be destroyed. I see two scenarios: 1. Dumbledore being manipulative. With what his true nature is I wouldn't put it past him. "Nick, it's the only way to keep Voldemort from ever returning." "Think of the greater good, Nicholas." 2. Nicholas decided that, after all those measures had been taken and LV still managed to almost procure the stone, the only way to protect the stone was to destroy it. Dumbledore may've said "Are you sure? If you do this...you know you and your wife will die." Then Nick may've said "I know...but if it's the only way to give Voldemort from returning...Pern and I will make enough Elixer to set our affairs in order...we've discussed it and decided that's what we would do if your protection failed...then I'll destroy the stone." "Are you sure?" "Yes. Besides...It's really like going to bed after a very very long day..." Or something like that. So it could've been manipulation or sacrifice. ~Cassie - Who is looking forward to the CoS post DH threads ^^~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Tue Jan 29 21:34:28 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:34:28 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181135 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > And then it is back to Dumbledore, where yes I doubt he would have > dared to tell Lupin's secret under Dumbledore's nose till Lupin gave > him a lovely opening. But he did eventually tell. He let on at the end of PoA so Lupin had to resign as a teacher. Why did he do it then? Jayne From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 22:15:02 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:15:02 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181136 Alla wrote: > > Yes, for the longest time I was also thinking that he honestly believed that he was exposed to death by Sirius, whether that was the intention or not. Carol responds: And canon supports that interpretation. His reaction in PoA both before and after the Shrieking Shack confrontation suggests that he still believed it, whether or not it was true. (And no doubt he was further incensed by Sirius's remark that he deserved it.) Of course, his anger over the Prank obscures the real reason that he's furious: he thinks that Sirius betrayed Lily to her death. And he still believes at this point that Sirius murdered Peter Pettigrew and twelve Muggles. So a belief that Sirius tried to murder him when they were both sixteen would fit right in, each preconception feeding the other. (I'm not going to talk about Sirius's motives, but at the very least he should have realized that Severus was not an Animagus and would be in much greater danger than he and his friends.) > Alla: > I am not anymore. As to whether Snape wanted to take on Lupin, well > considering the fact that I believe that he knew what Remus was AND > went there anyways, um, what else should I believe? > > Does that make sense to you? I mean, I loved that speculation that > he wanted to kill Lupin, but even if he did not, he KNEW and he WENT > THERE. > > If he did not want to take Lupin on, why did he go then? Maybe he > wanted to take a look at transformed werewolf, who knows, but there > is no way I would blame anybody else for that. Carol: As Lily says, he has a theory (which she doesn't believe) and he must know her reasons for not believing it (for example, she might not believe that Dumbledore would endanger the students of Hogwarts by bringing a werewolf to the school--just as, later, she doesn't believe that he would ever have been friends with Grindelwald). Severus, being Severus, wants to prove that he's right (and also find out what the other Maruauders are up to). But being a teenage boy (like the Maruaders, who have a similar view of themselves), he probably sees himself as immortal and invincible. I see no reason to think that he wants to do more than glimpse the werewolf to prove his theory. And he would certainly think that he could do anything the Marauders could do. If they could push that knot on the Weeping Willow, enter the tunnel where the werewolf was, and come out alive, so could he. He was as good at spells as any of them and an exceptional DADA student, if that detailed exam and his future prowess are any indication. I don't think he expected to defeat the werewolf, only to survive the encounter. What he didn't know because Sirius didn't tell him is that the Marauders survived the encounter because they were Animagi. At any rate, Severus overestimated his capabilities and underestimated his danger, and, whether Sirius intended to murder him (or have him turned into a werewolf) or merely wanted him to wet his pants in fear, he was in mortal danger. Both Dumbledore and Snape believe that James saved Severus's life, and I have no reason to doubt that view of the matter. (It certainly didn't change their view of him or his of them. It just gave Severus another reason to resent them. He did, however, keep is word to Dumbledore not to reveal Remus's secret, even to the DEs and Voldemort. Why, we can only guess. Alla: > But as I said, even such Snape's hater as I am, I am forced to give him a credit for saving Lupin at the end. And that is defying Dumbledore nothing less. > > I believe it shows to me that at the end he finally let his grudge go in favor of saving people, whether he believed those people wronged him or not. But to me the whole point of that lovely moment is to show growth on Snape's behalf, not that he was like this all the time of his life. Again IMO, I am not asking anybody to agree with me and know that many people view Snape's whole life in much noble view than I do :) Carol: Let me surprise you by saying that I agree with you. "Lately, only those whom I could not save" shows that Snape himself sees a difference. In PoA, confronted with the werewolf and the "murderer," he's seething with the desire for revenge (which he overcomes even then, not killing Black or Lupin when he has the chance (though he does bind the about-to-transform werewolf for safekeeping) and later conjures stretchers to take Black and HRH to the castle (admittedly looking forward to seeing the "muredrer" soul-sucked). The change to a Snape who risks his cover to save Lupin is remarkable, and it parallels a similar journey from vengeance to forgiveness on Harry's part. Severus Snape, IMO, did not start out evil, but his remarkable talents were unrecognized except by the Slytherins, and the Marauders, who should have seen his cleverness and inventiveness and viewed him as a kindred spirit, saw only "a little oddball" who belonged to the House they associated with Dark magic. Through a combination of the wrong friends, Lily's rejection, and his own mistaken ideology, he became a Death Eater, serving the Dark Lord loyally, as far as we know. And through remorse for his own mistake, he turned to Dumbledore, promising him to do "anything" to save Lily, and still risking life and liberty to protect her son even after Lily was dead. He did not instantly become good. He never became "nice" (though he was capable of civility to McGonagall and Narcissa), but he did serve the cause of good, and he did learn to believe in that cause, working to save lives rather than watching people die without raising a finger to save them. So, yes, I agree with you. He didn't start out noble. (IMO, he started out naive.) And even when he switched sides, for highly personal reasons, he was loyal and courageous but still vengeful and petty. Only near the end of his short life did he focus on saving lives, even those of men like Lupin, who hated him. And if that isn't noble, it's at least closer to nobility than most of us will ever come. Carol, shedding a tear for Severus and another for Lupin and wishing they could both have survived and come to an understanding From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jan 29 22:24:48 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:24:48 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181137 > > > Leah:> > > > Far from enabling Snape to 'lord it' over the Marauders, being > > > forbidden to tell puts Snape in a very awkward position vis a > vis > > > Lily, because he can not explain to her what actually happened > in > > > the Prank, ie Sirius played a trick which would have killed > Snape > > or > > > turned him into a werewolf, and he can not warn Lily that he was > > > right in his suspicions of Lupin. He is struggling with this in > > his > > > memory of talking with Lily in 'The Prince's Tale'. > > Alla: > > It did not read to me that he was struggling much. More like he was > almost flat out telling Lily. And maybe what actually happened in > addition to Sirius telling Snape how to get in was Snape knowing > full well that he will see werewolf there and going there anyways. Magpie: I've been thinking about this since DH too--and I agree with Potioncat about Snape redirecting his rage about Sirius betraying Lily into the Prank. But I think the Prank still must exist in exactly the form everyone agrees it does in PoA. I mean first, if Snape knew there was a werewolf and went in there anyway, we lose a lot. Why doesn't Sirius accuse him of that? How did James save his life if Lupin was still at the end of the tunnel if Snape went in fully knowing the danger? I actually think that if you imagine yourself in the situation, Snape simply couldn't "know" anything. He might very well have had a "werewolf theory" that he shared with Lily, but being a 15-year- old with a theory is very different than knowing it to be true. Simply seeing the Marauders going in and out of the willow would surely hint that his theory wasn't correct, right? If he imagined Lupin was caged up it would mean that the Prank was exactly the way Snape had described it, with Sirius luring him into someplace where Sirius knows the danger is deadly and also knows that Snape doesn't know that. I think a werewolf at Hogwarts was an absurd idea. It happened to be true, but I think Snape could have thrown it out as a theory without truly believing it himself. It had never happened before or since, and werewolves seem often used as a sort of shorthand for scary monster by a lot of people. (Actually now that I think about it, could Lily be referring to something Snape only put out as a "theory" after the Prank happened and he actually knew the truth and was dancing around it? I can't remember how the scene goes.) So I feel like however we look at it we still have Snape the clueless teen who's real crime is trying to get something on his hated rivals, and Sirius setting him up as a fool in a potentially deadly way. I mean, if Snape was more culpable than he lets on why wouldn't Sirius of all people call him on it? It seems a bit too much like conveniently erasing Sirius' culpability even without Sirius knowing it in ways JKR doesn't usually do. Sirius *is* known for putting people in danger for fun because he's not thinking. (I feel compelled to argue with myself here and say, "Ah, but he's also known to be falsely accused and take the blame anyway!" but I think this is a different thing. With James and Lily Sirius knew he was falsely accused but felt guilty. With Snape Sirius is owning up to things he actually did and doesn't feel guilty at all.) And the same goes for Snape--he's not a werewolf hunter. It's not recklessness that gets him into trouble, it's bitterness and hatred. That fits perfectly into his trying to find out Lupin's secret and get the Marauders in trouble--and possibly prove that Lily shouldn't be friends with them. Also from a writing standpoint, I don't think JKR is above saying things wrong when she has people talk about them. In the Snape/Lily scene I think a big point is to show Lily having exactly the attitude about the whole thing that bugs Snape--that James saved Snape and Snape was silly about these claims of being put in danger by Sirius. I would not be surprised if she actually hadn't worked out whether the exact phrasing in the scene fit what would actually have happened. (If the Pensieve memories were actually as mutable as memories I would explain it by saying that Snape's remembering it slightly wrong.) Afaik we've never really had those two versions of Snape overhearing the prophecy explained either--I think this might be like that. She needs to have Lily and Snape show their positions on the Prank in broad strokes. -m From kaleeyj at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 23:11:16 2008 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:11:16 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181138 > Leah: > > Snape was instructed by Dumbledore not to reveal Lupin's > secret: '"Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel. He > was forbidden to tell anyone by Dumbledore but from that time on he > knew what I was..."' Lupin in POA. > Bex: Good point, but do you think that maybe Lupin doesn't have the /whole/ story here? That's an easy way of explaining things, yes? Very convenient, and exactly what Lupin's mind would come up with as a reason. But Lupin has been wrong before. What could DD threaten Snape with? Sending him home, possibly, expelling him, perhaps, if he told, but once the entire story got out, the school governors wouldn't keep Snape out of school - once parents started hearing about the werewolf, they would demand that Lupin be expelled. A student was almost attacked. If Snape let something slip at breakfast, there's no way he could be expelled without making a riot - surely Snape was smart enough to see he would get the better end of the deal. The only way I see that scenario actually working is a) some sort of secrecy charm that Snape didn't know he was a part of until it was too late, b) Snape was apprehended and was threatened to be punished before everyone had all the facts, or c) DD ACTIVELY threatened him with expulsion for being out of bed, and Snape made a deal not to tell. That doesn't seem very schoolboy!Snape like to me - surely he was smart enough to realize what power he had there. Certainly doesn't feel like DD - threaten a 15 year old? How badly do you have to threaten him to make him keep quiet about THAT? And Sirius was the real cause of the problem, and at least James was also out of bed - Snape had to be out of his head to think that 'he' would be sent back home, of all the parties involved. Especially since I think that Snape had at least a little time to think things over before he had to deal with DD. (Unless he was confunded, by James, perhaps?) Really, I see that confrontation between Snape and DD almost playing out where DD would be /asking/ Snape to keep quiet. It seems much more logical, given the circumstances and Snape's intelligence and reasoning skills (which I assume were ahead of the pack when he was a boy, too). Perhaps Snape made a deal that he could stay at Hogwarts or in Hogsmeade for the summer? (He's got some other Riddle similarities, why not one more?) I just can't see how Snape could have been FORCED to keep quiet without some kind of magical enforcement involved. AND to blast a point that so many people have made before, Snape's memory that I referenced upthread ("Every month at the full moon") occurs almost immediately AFTER the prank (assuming the Prince's tale memories are in chronological order.) Lily tells him that she knows what happened "the other night." And the OWLs memory occurs after BOTH of those memories. (Which didn't make any sense to me at all, IMO. Alas, another thread.) So Snape is doing everything but draw a picture to Lily at least that Lupin IS a werewolf - looks like he's keeping his word, but just BEGGING someone to put 2 and 2 together. ~Bex From leahstill at hotmail.com Tue Jan 29 23:16:58 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:16:58 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181139 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jayne" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > > > > And then it is back to Dumbledore, where yes I doubt he would have > > dared to tell Lupin's secret under Dumbledore's nose till Lupin gave > > him a lovely opening. > > > > But he did eventually tell. He let on at the end of PoA so Lupin had > to resign as a teacher. Why did he do it then? > Leah: Because Lupin has failed to take the Wolfsbane potion, transformed and put students (and presumably others) in danger. Because Lupin failed to tell Dumbledore that Sirius could access Hogwarts via the Shrieking Shack passage and also failed to mention that Sirius was an animagus (all admitted by Lupin, and Snape at this stage probably still believes Sirius is a murderer). There are more personal and less worthy reasons of course - Snape has heard Lupin say to him'the joke's on you again', referring to the Prank which nearly killed Snape and hasalso heard Sirius say that Snape 'deserved' to die in the Shack. Incidentally, there does not seem to be any criticism of Snape by Dumbledore for 'letting slip' Lupin's secret. When Dumbledore says goodbye to Lupin in Harry's presence, there's no regret from Dumbledore; it's your carriage awaits, and a sober 'Goodbye, Remus'. Snape is presumably not the only one hacked off by what Lupin didn't reveal. It could be that Snape revealed the secret with Dumbledore's full permission (and of course an 'outed' werewolf will make a good spy later on!) Leah From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 30 00:06:21 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:06:21 -0000 Subject: Life's Elixor or Shrinking Solution? In-Reply-To: <02e601c862bc$dc9560d0$6501a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181140 > Shelley: > I don't see where I implied anything about list member relationships! > Potioncat: No, I was just having fun. But Mike is quite right; this is not a topical lotion, it's a "to be taken internally" potion. Holy kneasles! How could I have forgotten that bit of canon? So all my forbidden one-liners didn't even have the saving grace of canon behind them! Nor does this one....I do hope I have some burn ointment on hand, I'll need it after I finish the ironing. From leahstill at hotmail.com Wed Jan 30 00:39:33 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:39:33 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181141 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bex" wrote: > > > > Leah: > > > > Snape was instructed by Dumbledore not to reveal Lupin's > > secret: '"Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel. He > > was forbidden to tell anyone by Dumbledore but from that time on he > > knew what I was..."' Lupin in POA. > > > > Bex: > Good point, but do you think that maybe Lupin doesn't have the /whole/ > story here? That's an easy way of explaining things, yes? Very > convenient, and exactly what Lupin's mind would come up with as a > reason. But Lupin has been wrong before. Leah: It's possible, because Lupin is often not that reliable but we don't get a hint of any alternative scenario. Bex: > What could DD threaten Snape with? Sending him home, possibly, > expelling him, perhaps, if he told, but once the entire story got out, > the school governors wouldn't keep Snape out of school - once parents > started hearing about the werewolf, they would demand that Lupin be > expelled. A student was almost attacked. If Snape let something slip > at breakfast, there's no way he could be expelled without making a > riot - surely Snape was smart enough to see he would get the better > end of the deal. (snipped) Certainly doesn't feel like DD - threaten a 15 year old? How > badly do you have to threaten him to make him keep quiet about THAT? Leah: But if Lupin *is* speaking the truth, Snape, (who shouldn't have been wandering around anyway) just got a glimpse at the end of a tunnel. It's not as if he's covered with bites and scratches, or has had a really close encounter of the POA unspeakable medium variety. It's his word against the Marauders and Dumbledore. Snape is a nerdy little oddball, whereas James and Sirius are the sports jock and the cool, handsome guy. And people will know that they pick on Snape and Snape therefore will want revenge. Lily, Snape's 'best friend' prefers the version she's heard from the Marauders, and dismisses Snape, 'I know your theory'. In the average high school, who is likely to be believed? If Dumbledore pooh poohs the story, who will take Snape's side? After DH, I think Dumbledore's perfectly capable of making (very discreet but meaningful) threats to Snape. Snape has a lot to lose from expulsion. He's dirt poor, he's a half blood - his parents wouldn't or couldn't step to the line for him. All Snape has going for him is his intelligence and his magic. If he's thrown out before OWLS, his wand broken like Hagrid's, he'll have to live as a Muggle, and he'll have to educate himself to live in the Muggle world. James' parents are so rich that he will eventually be able to live on inherited wealth. Those parents could make a fuss on his behalf and could certainly afford to school him elsewhere. Even Sirius has rich Uncle Alphard. Bex: > > Really, I see that confrontation between Snape and DD almost playing > out where DD would be /asking/ Snape to keep quiet. It seems much more > logical, given the circumstances and Snape's intelligence and > reasoning skills (which I assume were ahead of the pack when he was a > boy, too). Perhaps Snape made a deal that he could stay at Hogwarts or > in Hogsmeade for the summer? (He's got some other Riddle similarities, > why not one more?) Leah: There's nothing in Snape's conversation with Lily or his subsequent dealings with the Marauders that suggest that Snape got any sort of 'good deal' out of the Prank. As we see in Snape's Worst Memory, the Marauders were tormenting him horribly, and had apparently been doing so for some time. If the Prank had given Snape a hold over Dumbledore, the most logical thing for Snape to have asked for would be for the Marauders to be ordered to lay off him - or for Lily to be told about Lupin and sworn to secrecy. As you point out, SWM happens after the Prank, so the Marauders felt perfectly free to continue to bully Snape very openly. > > I just can't see how Snape could have been FORCED to keep quiet > without some kind of magical enforcement involved. Leah: There could have been some magical enforcement. But I think fear of expulsion would be enough. And when Snape gives his word he keeps it. Bex: > AND to blast a point that so many people have made before, Snape's > memory that I referenced upthread ("Every month at the full moon") > occurs almost immediately AFTER the prank (assuming the Prince's tale > memories are in chronological order.) Lily tells him that she knows > what happened "the other night." And the OWLs memory occurs after BOTH > of those memories. (Which didn't make any sense to me at all, IMO. > Alas, another thread.) Leah: Makes little sense to me either. > > Leah From kaleeyj at gmail.com Wed Jan 30 00:41:35 2008 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:41:35 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 16/17 - post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181142 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cassandra Wladyslava" wrote: > > Bex: > I think that DD knew Voldemort had infiltrated Hogwarts. By the end > of > the year, he probably knew it was Quirrell. The main reasons I think > this are: > > > Alla: > > Um, I think he knew as well and I think the most obvious hint is > when we hear him telling Snape to keep an eye on Quirrell in > Prince's memory. > > Cassie: > > I don't think this necessarily proves that he knew LV was posessing > Quirrell. I took it to mean he was suspicious of Quirrell stealing the > stone for HIMSELF. > > EDIT: (After reading some more of Chapter 17) I'm wondering about this part: > "It's almost like he thought I had the right to face *Voldemort *if I > could..." (Harry, SS pag 302) > > Not Quirrel. Voldemort. How could Dumbledore have thought Harry had any > chance of facing Voldemort unless he knew/suspected it was Voldemort who was > trying to steal the stone? > > Either way, it still begs the question: Why didn't Dumbledore DO something > about it? Like confront/deal with Quirrell/LV? Certainly if he knew LV had > infilrated Hogwarts he'd want to keep him far away from Harry and the other > children - never mind the stone. Bex: You think DD didn't have people keeping an eye on Quirrell? DD is a legilimens; surely he would have an inkling that Quirrell has his master in the BACK OF HIS HEAD! Plus Voldemort has a very one-track mind (look at OotP). DD is keeping him busy - he's not interested in children if there's better fish to catch. He is intent on surviving and getting the stone. > Alla: > > Right so here are my questions. Why would he give Harry invisibility > cloak with the note just in case if he did not intend for them to go > there? Why, why would he tell Harry how to work the Mirror of Erised > if he wanted for Harry to have nothing to do with it? Bex: Not that he didn't want Harry to have anything to do with the mirror - someone has to get the stone out of it. DD chose Harry to be that one. It required someone innocent enough to just be happy he found the stone - most any of the younger students could have done it, if someone told them how the mirror worked. And to counter, why would DD have taught Harry how to use the mirror if he wanted Harry to face Voldemort? Wouldn't it be much safer for the stone to stay in the mirror? As for the cloak: So Harry gets his Dad's cloak. Does this mean DD wants Harry to go looking for an evil dark wizard who would leap at the chance to kill him? It means that DD thinks Harry can put the cloak to use - after all, it is a very useful item. Otherwise Filch or another student would find it. DD is giving it to Harry in case he needs it - for anything. No specific task in mind. (All right, that one is a bit weak, but there you go.) "You did do the thing properly?" DD is expressing delight that Harry did his homework. Did DD expect Harry to figure out what the stone was? Let's see: 1. Harry was with Hagrid when the stone was retrieved. 2. Harry stumbled into the corridor (c/o Hermione, who unlocked the door). 3. He realized Fluffy was hiding something (again, c/o Hermione). 4. He put 2 and 2 together about what was being hidden (which was good reasoning). 5. Hagrid let Flamel's name slip (That could be DD's intention, but Hagrid wasn't in on that loop - he looked furious with himself for letting that go.) 6. Harry learns how to work the Mirror. 7. Harry figured out who Flamel was (which was a fluke from the cards - after all that time in the Library, and the trio still hadn't found out who Flamel was? And the only book he is referred in is "an enormous old book" that Hermione got out of the library. From the sound of it, it's not a book a first year would be reading. Was DD expecting them to ask Madam Pince?) 8. Harry learns from the centaurs that LV is trying to come back, and he puts 2 and 2 together again that LV wants the stone. 9. Then Harry doesn't do anything until he decides Quirrell has broken. DD was in control of Harry seeing the package get picked up, making Hagrid the person to pick it up (since he lets things slip every now and then), and possibly an outlet for Harry to determine who Flamel was (via Madam Pince). Otherwise, it's mere chance that Harry would get to the third floor corridor, notice that the dog was standing on a trapdoor, realize that what the dog was guarding was the little package from Gringotts, figure out what it was (even with Hagrid's help), figure out who is actually after it, and then decide to do something about it. He never would have a reason to get in the corridor if he wasn't running from the Midnight Duel. It was a fluke that he learned about Flamel, unless he asked Madam Pince for a book on the guy and actually got it. And then he had to learn from the centaurs that LV was after the unicorns to stay alive (perhaps with a little more thought, Harry would have gotten this on his own). And as for the mirror - was DD counting on Harry wandering the school and just finding that classroom? Harry doesn't know where he is - he just ran like the dickens when Filch nearly caught him in the library. That was NOTHING but luck that Harry found the classroom. If Filch and Snape hadn't almost cornered him in that room, he would have found his way back to the tower and not gone wandering again. Maybe DD was planning to show him the mirror in the day over break? I would think that if DD had wanted Harry to fight Quirrell or Voldemort, he wouldn't have left Hogwarts for a whole day - he would have flooed to the Ministry on an urgent call, so as to stay near in case something went dreadfully wrong. He's crazy, but that was a HUGE risk, putting Harry into Devil's Snare, a dangerous chess set, against a troll, and in a life or death logic puzzle, and then LV's servant or LV himself, depending on what DD knew. Quirrell was an accomplished wizard - he could have axed Harry in a heartbeat, even without LV in his head. And was DD counting on Harry having Hermione and Ron with him? The mirror was placed in the gauntlet for sure over the Christmas holidays. (It may have been there before and moved out for the Holiday). Fluffy was in place at the first of the year - the other traps were probably set up that early as well. For sure, they were in place by springtime, because Hagrid tells the trio who is helping protect it. Surely he wouldn't have left the stone unguarded that long - so did the other professors change their enchantments to play to Harry's friends' strengths? > Cassie: > > "D'you think he meant you to do it?" said Ron. "Sending you your father's > cloak and everything?" > > "Well," Hermione exploded, "if he did - I mean to say - that's terrible - > you could have been killed." > > "No, it isn't," said Harry thoughtfully,"He's a funny man, Dumbledore. I > think he sort of wanted to give me a chance. I think he knows more or less > everything that goes on here, you know. I reckon he had a pretty good idea > we were going to try, and instead of stopping us, he ust taught us enough to > help. I don't think it was an accident he let me find out how the mirror > worked. It's almost like he thought I had the right to face Voldemort if I > could..." > > "Yeah, Dumbledore's off his rocker, all right," said Ron proudly. > > (SS pg 302) > > Of course, that doesn't ENTIRELY reveal Dumbledore's intentions. But from > that little peice of canon, it seems that at least Harry thought Dumbledore > meant him to find out all this stuff. Maybe he (Dumbledore) didn't actually > expect Harry to try and fight Quirrellmort...just figure out about the > stone, etc...I don't know. Bex: But Harry is usually wrong. The first time he gets a major plot point right is in HBP, when he thinks Draco is up to something. Harry thought that, but we're not getting a glimpse of DD's thoughts here. We're getting Harry's perspective on the events, which again, is usually wrong. > Alla: > > Um, he basically convinced two human beings that they NEED to die. > IMO it is very sinister, not to mention manipulative, but that's > nothing new to me. > > I mean, can you show me ONE healthy human being that wants to die? I > am not talking about not being afraid to die. Many people are not > afraid of death, but I am yet to meet one healthy person who > expressed a desire to die. IMO Flamel's age shows that he had no > desire to die whatsoever, not yet IMO. And I am not even talking > about immortality, his wife is with him, so it is not like he does > not have anybody to share long life with. He invented the stone , > right? And here comes Dumbledore and says ? OOPS, you lived enough, > stone must be destroyed. I don't know, sounds sinister to me. > > Cassie: > > From SS page 297: "They have enough Elixer to set their affairs in order and > then, yes, they will die"...."To one as young as you, I'm sure it seems > incredible, but to Nicholas and Perenelle, it really is like going to bed > after a very *very* long day." - Albus Dumbledore > > It is true that most healthy people do not WANT to die, but not many people > live to be 658/665. In this case, I can sort of see someone being willing to > die and not being suicidal or depressed or in pain or having any other > health/mental problem that would make them want to die. > > We also don't know WHO decided the stone should be destroyed. I see two > scenarios: > > 1. Dumbledore being manipulative. With what his true nature is I wouldn't > put it past him. "Nick, it's the only way to keep Voldemort from ever > returning." "Think of the greater good, Nicholas." > 2. Nicholas decided that, after all those measures had been taken and LV > still managed to almost procure the stone, the only way to protect the stone > was to destroy it. Dumbledore may've said "Are you sure? If you do > this...you know you and your wife will die." Then Nick may've said "I > know...but if it's the only way to give Voldemort from returning...Pern and > I will make enough Elixer to set our affairs in order...we've discussed it > and decided that's what we would do if your protection failed...then I'll > destroy the stone." "Are you sure?" "Yes. Besides...It's really like going > to bed after a very very long day..." > > Or something like that. So it could've been manipulation or sacrifice. Bex: I agree with Cassie. The Flamels are not suicidal - but they prepare enough of the elixir to get things in order. They are preparing to die. Convincing them to give up eternal life probably took a little leaning on DD's part - they may have just not been willing to convince themselves to take that first step. ("Well, lets wait until after Christmas..." "The garden is blooming, dear, how can we miss this?") You know how we put off things that are unpleasant - they may have done the same. (And imagine being married to the same person for over 6 centuries... shudder.) > ~Cassie - Who is looking forward to the CoS post DH threads ^^~ > > Bex, who is as well, and is really surprised that this post grew so quickly. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 02:09:28 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:09:28 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181143 Julie: > But what about the werewolf secret? What could possibly have induced Snape > not > to spill the beans on Lupin? I can't really think of anything other than > that Dumbledore > might have threatened to expel him if he did. (Honestly, it wouldn't > surprise me now > that I know who Dumbledore really was, though there is no canon evidence for > it.) > But it still rings a bit false, as Dumbledore later doesn't seem to give > much thought > to Lupin's circumstances or future. Any other ideas? Montavilla47 I have another idea, but it can't really be stated easily. Not and sound plausible. Instead, I wrote it out as part of a fanfic about Snape. The part about Snape agreeing to keep quiet is almost stand-alone, though (it was originally a short piece). If you are interested in that chapter, you can find it here: http://montavilla.livejournal.com/8180.html#cutid1 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 04:18:02 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 04:18:02 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181144 Jayne wrote: > > But he did eventually tell. He let on at the end of PoA so Lupin had to resign as a teacher. Why did he do it then? > > Leah responded: Because Lupin has failed to take the Wolfsbane potion, transformed and put students (and presumably others) in danger. Because Lupin failed to tell Dumbledore that Sirius could access Hogwarts via the Shrieking Shack passage and also failed to mention that Sirius was an animagus (all admitted by Lupin, and Snape at this stage probably still believes Sirius is a murderer). > Incidentally, there does not seem to be any criticism of Snape by Dumbledore for 'letting slip' Lupin's secret. When Dumbledore says goodbye to Lupin in Harry's presence, there's no regret from Dumbledore; it's your carriage awaits, and a sober 'Goodbye, Remus'. It could be that Snape revealed the secret with Dumbledore's full permission (and of course an 'outed' werewolf will make a good spy later on!) Carol adds: I agree that Snape either had DD's consent or knew he wouldn't object. After all, there was no way that Lupin could retain his position as DADA teacher (even without the curse or jinx on the post) after endangering three students by failing to take his potion and transforming in front of them. And Fudge, of all people, already knew about it, so it's not as if Snape's telling the students why Professor Lupin wouldn't be teaching at Hogwarts any more really made much difference. If Lupin hadn't handed in his resignation (which, if he's a man of honor, he would have done with or without Snape's little "slip"), Dumbledore would have asked for his resignation. (Harry speaks of Lupin as having been "sacked" in OoP when he's talking about the jinx on the DADA post. Essentially, Snape could finally reveal the secret he'd been keeping all those years because it was going to be found out, anyway. On a sidenote, you spoke of the Marauder's bullying Severus as a recurring thing, but I don't think that's the case. I think they routinely hexed each other in the hallways like Harry and Draco, but the two-on-one sneak attack reads to me like retaliation for Severus's attempt to get them in trouble by getting into the Shrieking Shack. (Sirius is conveniently forgetting who put him up to it.) Lupin later tells Harry that "Snape gave as good as he got" when he and James met one on one. So I think the picture of poor little persecuted Severus who couldn't stand up for himself is exaggerated. He has good reflexes, as we see in SWM; unfortunately, he's no match for two boys who already have their wands out. But we're talking about a kid who, according to Sirius (no fan of his) knew more 'curses" (surely, schoolboy hexes and jinxes) than most seventh-years" when he was eleven. Just because he was skinny and nerdy doesn't mean he couldn't cast a mean curse--and invent them as well, as we learn in HBP. Carol, glad that no sixteen-year-old boys of her acquaintance know magic or transform into werewolves From leahstill at hotmail.com Wed Jan 30 11:38:36 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:38:36 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181145 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: >> On a sidenote, you spoke of the Marauder's bullying Severus as a > recurring thing, but I don't think that's the case. I think they > routinely hexed each other in the hallways like Harry and Draco, but > the two-on-one sneak attack reads to me like retaliation for Severus's > attempt to get them in trouble by getting into the Shrieking Shack. > (Sirius is conveniently forgetting who put him up to it.) Lupin later > tells Harry that "Snape gave as good as he got" when he and James met > one on one. So I think the picture of poor little persecuted Severus > who couldn't stand up for himself is exaggerated. He has good > reflexes, as we see in SWM; unfortunately, he's no match for two boys > who already have their wands out. But we're talking about a kid who, > according to Sirius (no fan of his) knew more 'curses" (surely, > schoolboy hexes and jinxes) than most seventh-years" when he was eleven. > > Just because he was skinny and nerdy doesn't mean he couldn't cast a > mean curse--and invent them as well, as we learn in HBP. Leah: I'm sure Snape could look after himself quite satisfactorily on a one to one basis. However, I don't agree that SWM was a one- off. We have 'Sirius's head turned. He became very still, like a dog that has scented a rabbit, "Excellent", he said softly. "Snivellus".....Wormtail was looking from James to Sirius to Snape with a look of avid anticipation on his face...Snape reacted so fast it was as though he had been expecting an attack...' While that doesn't confirm it wasn't a one-off, it very much reads to me as a pack hunt, and from Wormtail's and Snape's reaction, something that had happened before. We see James and Sirius mocking Snape and trying to trip him up on the Hogwarts express. It's difficult to think they didn't act together again until SWM. When Harry questions Sirius and Lupin about SWM, Lupin says, '"Did I ever tell you to lay off Snape?",... "Did I ever have the guts to tell you I thought you were out of order?"' 'Ever' suggest recurrent attacks, and there's no reason why Lupin should think Sirius/James were out of order if it was simple one to one hexing, or any reason why James and Sirius should have been made occasionally to feel 'ashamed', as Sirius says. Finally, in HBP, 'The Flight of the Prince', Snape shouts at Harry that James never attacked Snape unless it was 'four on one'. If James and Snape were mutually cursing/hexing each other in seventh year, then that's an exaggeration, but I think it's hard to get 'never' from just the attack in SWM. Or perhaps Snape distinguished that sort of attack from one to one hexing against the wall contests with James. And at some point, Snape invented Sectumsempra 'for enemies'. Leah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 14:31:34 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:31:34 -0000 Subject: CoS CH 1-5 post DH look Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181146 "Mrs. Weasley was matching across the yard, scattering chickens, and for a short, plump, kind-faced woman, it was remarkable how much she looked like a saber-toothed tiger" - p.32 Alla: I'll say that I was among the list members who was not shocked at all by Molly's duelling Bella and winning such duel. Somehow JKR managed to make me convinced that Molly is a powerful witch without showing her doing battle magics. Granted, it was partially because I saw how powerful their kids are and thought that genes come from their parents. But comparisons like this helped as well. "Nine raids. Nine! And old Mundungus Fletcher tried to put a hex on me when I had my back turned..." - p.38. Alla: This quote was brought up before, but I just soooo love her sticking in the names that will be important later on. "Letters from school," said Mr. Weasley, passing Harry and Ron identical envelopes of yellowish parchment, addressed in green ink. "Dumbledore already knows you're here, HArry - doesn't miss a trick, that man. You two've got them, too," he added, as Fred and George ambled in, still in their pajamas. - p.43. Alla: So Dumbledore knows Harry is there, eh? Silly question - how does he know that? Trace? Silver instrument? Is this what I watched you more closely than you thought means? So does Dumbledore know every single detail that happens to Harry while at Dursleys? Or does he just know when Harry leaves Dursleys? "Leave him alone, he didn't want all that!" said Ginny. It was the first time she had spoken in front of Harry. She was glaring at Malfoy. "Potter, you've got yourself a girlfried!" drawled Malfoy. Ginny went scarlet as Ron and Hermione fought their way over, both clutching stacks of Lockhart's books" - p.61 Alla: I must say that I was among the folks who thought that Ginny erm... became too fiery in OOP. I am already changing my mind when rereading CoS. I think this one is totally the hint of her fiery spirit and on par with Ron's famous "she never shuts up usually" I am quite satisfied. I mean, just couple days ago she could not say a word in front of Harry and when she thinks Malfoy talks garbage, she does not hesitate to defend Harry and loudly. You go Ginny :) And yes, I do not think JKR could show us too much of fiery Ginny because Harry did not notice anything but Ron's little sister, but I think she hinted enough, for me anyways. I mean, I still wish she would hint at Ginny's interest in Quidditch but I do see her spirit here :) "Maybe he's ill!" said Ron hopefully. "Maybe he's left," said Harry, "because he missed out on Defense against Dark arts job again!" "Or he might have been sacked!" said Ron enthusiastically. "I mean, everyone hates him-" "Or maybe," said a very cold voice right behind them, "he's waiting to hear why you two didn't arrive on school train" - p.78 Alla: NO other reason to bring up this quote other than this is one of the Snape's remark that I find to be funny and do not desire to strangle him for saying it. "Ron gulped. This wasn't the first time Snape had given Harry the impression of being able to read minds" - p.79 Alla: Well, yeah :) From cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com Wed Jan 30 17:50:47 2008 From: cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com (Cassandra Wladyslava) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:50:47 -0500 Subject: PS/SS chapters 16/17 - post DH look Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181147 Bex: You think DD didn't have people keeping an eye on Quirrell? DD is a legilimens; surely he would have an inkling that Quirrell has his master in the BACK OF HIS HEAD! Plus Voldemort has a very one-track mind (look at OotP). DD is keeping him busy - he's not interested in children if there's better fish to catch. He is intent on surviving and getting the stone. Cassie: Sure I thought DD had people keeping an eye on Quirrell. But I *initially* thought it was because he may've thought Quirrell was looking to steal the stone for himself. I don't think the answer is entirely clear, but there are hints he may've known Voldemort was possessing Quirrell. As for DD being a legilimens...so is Snape and apparently he didn't know Voldemort was in the back of Quirrell's head (if we believe what he told Bellatrix and Narcissa on Spinner's End). Again, it still begs the question: Why allow Quirrell/Voldemort to continue? Why allow Voldemort to remain free? > Cassie: > it seems that at least Harry thought Dumbledore > meant him to find out all this stuff. Maybe he (Dumbledore) didn't actually > expect Harry to try and fight Quirrellmort...just figure out about the > stone, etc...I don't know. Bex: But Harry is usually wrong. The first time he gets a major plot point right is in HBP, when he thinks Draco is up to something. Harry thought that, but we're not getting a glimpse of DD's thoughts here. We're getting Harry's perspective on the events, which again, is usually wrong. Cassie: Oh, I agree that Harry is usually wrong. And he may've been wrong here. I think he may have been partially right. Dumbledore wanted Harry to learn SOMETHING - but to what end and for what purpose we do not know. It is not direct, cannonical evidence of what DD's intentions were, this is true. I only mentioned it to point out that Harry, at least, agrees with Alla on this. As for myself...I can't say...like you said, we can't get into the mind of DD. ~Cassie - who hopes that encyclopedia she's been hearing about will contain some VERY indepth answers and character analysis -- [img]http://sekainomelody.com/linkage/200x50_3.jpg[url= http://www.sekainomelody.com][/url][/img] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 18:54:13 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:54:13 -0000 Subject: CoS CH 1-5 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181148 > JKR: > "Letters from school," said Mr. Weasley, passing Harry and Ron > identical envelopes of yellowish parchment, addressed in green > ink. "Dumbledore already knows you're here, HArry - doesn't miss a > trick, that man. You two've got them, too," he added, as Fred and > George ambled in, still in their pajamas. - p.43. > > > Alla: > > So Dumbledore knows Harry is there, eh? Silly question - how does he > know that? Trace? Silver instrument? Is this what I watched you more > closely than you thought means? > > So does Dumbledore know every single detail that happens to Harry > while at Dursleys? Or does he just know when Harry leaves Dursleys? > Montavilla47: Perhaps Dumbldore has his own version of the Marauders' map. One that shows where Harry is at any given moment. Perhaps that's the real use of the scar on his knee that looks like the London Underground map? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 20:44:32 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:44:32 -0000 Subject: PS/SS chapters 16/17 - post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181149 Cassie wrote: > As for DD being a legilimens...so is Snape and apparently he didn't know Voldemort was in the back of Quirrell's head (if we believe what he told Bellatrix and Narcissa on Spinner's End). Carol responds: I wouldn't take anything that Snape says to Bellatrix in "Spinner's End" at face value. He's telling her the same cover story he told Voldemort, keeping a lot of information to himself. It would be interesting, now that we have DH, to determine how much is half-truth and how much is out-and-out falsehood. I'd say that his supposed suspicion that "the unworthy Quirrell" was stealing the stone for himself was among the lies, whether or not he knew or suspected that the changes in Quirrell's manner and behavior resulted from Voldemort's possessing him. (The nervousness and stuttering predate the possession, as we see from Harry's encounter with Quirrell in the Leaky Cauldron. But if you combine them with his sudden desire to wrap his head in a purple turban, I'd say that Snape didn't need DD to tell him to keep an eye on Quirrell. As Quirrell said, he was suspicious from the first. The staff members knew perfectly well that the traps they were setting up were to protect the Stone, and once Quirrell set loose a Troll as a diversion, Snape knew for sure that he was trying to steal it. And since he tells Quirrell to consider "where [his] loyalties lie," I'd say it's pretty clear that he didn't think that Quirrell was trying to steal the Stone for himself. > ~Cassie - who hopes that encyclopedia she's been hearing about will contain some VERY indepth answers and character analysis Carol, who hopes that the encyclopedia doesn't spoil all our fun by telling us by substituting what will of necessity be canon for all our theories, analysis, and speculation From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 21:49:56 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:49:56 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181150 > Carol: > On a sidenote, you spoke of the Marauder's bullying Severus as a > recurring thing, but I don't think that's the case. I think they > routinely hexed each other in the hallways like Harry and Draco, but > the two-on-one sneak attack reads to me like retaliation for Severus's > attempt to get them in trouble by getting into the Shrieking Shack. > (Sirius is conveniently forgetting who put him up to it.) zgirnius: I disagree. Leah has presented most of the evidence for me in her excellent post in reply to yours: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181145. I shall simply add the additional points I see in favor of the supposition that the Marauders had a pattern of ganging up on Snape. One is the detention records Harry sees in HBP. There is a double detention in there served by James and Sirius together for using an illegal hex on one Bertram Aubrey. Between this, the train scene, and SWM, I see plenty of evidence to conclude ganging up on other students was an established pattern of behavior for James and Sirius. Do we really think they would make a (positive) exception for Severus, attacking him only individually? Another is a detail of SWM not mentioned by Leah. The students whose reaction to the scene was "apprehensive" seem, again, to point to a pattern of behavior by the Marauders that intimidated other students. `Fair' hexing matches with `worthy' opponents seems unlikely to create this reaction, IMO. > Carol: > Just because he was skinny and nerdy doesn't mean he couldn't cast a > mean curse--and invent them as well, as we learn in HBP. zgirnius: As, indeed, he does in SWM, when not being choked, flipped upside down, and dropped on the ground by his two attackers. No one is suggesting he was a victim of bullying because, as an individual, he was weak magically, or spineless. We are suggesting he was outnumbered. Also, the fact that he may on occasion have initiated one-on-one hexing with James, and James may have retaliated in kind (especially when hexing in public as a group activity could have annoyed the new girlfriend in 7th year ) does not preclude his having been bullied by James *and his gang* on other occasions. -zgirnius, never weak nor skinny, but only one glorious time able to use this to her advantage in school From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 23:39:40 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:39:40 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181151 > zgirnius: >> One is the detention records Harry sees in HBP. There is a double > detention in there served by James and Sirius together for using an > illegal hex on one Bertram Aubrey. Between this, the train scene, and > SWM, I see plenty of evidence to conclude ganging up on other > students was an established pattern of behavior for James and Sirius. > Do we really think they would make a (positive) exception for > Severus, attacking him only individually? Alla: I do not know about "us" but I think that they certainly attacked Snape individially and not individually, just as Snape attacked them individually or not. Nobody contradicted Sirius at the end of seven books that Snape ran with Slytherin gang. Nobody contradicted Sirius that Snape was in close relationships with Malfoy and I think that the fact that Narcissa came to him in HBP to save her son strengthens that assertion. Nobody told us at the end of seven books that Marauders stole Snape's precious book, so I take it that they did not steal anything and Snape spread it out himself or with the help of his Slytherin friends. I conclude from this that there were plenty of times when Snape was not outnumbered at all, while of course sometimes he could have been and we saw one of those times IMO. Zara: > Another is a detail of SWM not mentioned by Leah. The students whose > reaction to the scene was "apprehensive" seem, again, to point to a > pattern of behavior by the Marauders that intimidated other > students. `Fair' hexing matches with `worthy' opponents seems > unlikely to create this reaction, IMO. Alla: Um, that can be the reaction of people who are affraid that Snape will get up and start hexing them with Sectusemptra left and right, no? Or that Malfoy and Co shows up and do the same thing with Snape. > > Carol: > > Just because he was skinny and nerdy doesn't mean he couldn't cast a > > mean curse--and invent them as well, as we learn in HBP. > > zgirnius: > As, indeed, he does in SWM, when not being choked, flipped upside > down, and dropped on the ground by his two attackers. No one is > suggesting he was a victim of bullying because, as an individual, he > was weak magically, or spineless. We are suggesting he was > outnumbered. Alla: Of course he was **that time** IMO. Zara: > Also, the fact that he may on occasion have initiated one-on-one > hexing with James, and James may have retaliated in kind (especially > when hexing in public as a group activity could have annoyed the new > girlfriend in 7th year ) does not preclude his having been bullied > by James *and his gang* on other occasions. Alla: Totally does not preclude, I agree, I just do not see enough evidence to buy it, that's all. From kaleeyj at gmail.com Wed Jan 30 23:56:55 2008 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:56:55 -0000 Subject: CoS CH 1-5 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181152 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > "Mrs. Weasley was matching across the yard, scattering chickens, and > for a short, plump, kind-faced woman, it was remarkable how much she > looked like a saber-toothed tiger" - p.32 > > Alla: > > I'll say that I was among the list members who was not shocked at all > by Molly's duelling Bella and winning such duel. Somehow JKR managed > to make me convinced that Molly is a powerful witch without showing > her doing battle magics. Granted, it was partially because I saw how > powerful their kids are and thought that genes come from their parents. > > But comparisons like this helped as well. Bex: Agreed. Anyone who can handle (and stop) the twins is a powerful person indeed. Alla: > "Nine raids. Nine! And old Mundungus Fletcher tried to put a hex > on me when I had my back turned..." - p.38. > > This quote was brought up before, but I just soooo love her sticking > in the names that will be important later on. > Bex: I was impressed with JK giving us a very hazy picture of ol' Dung. He looks like a very shady character from the first time we hear about him. Wonder if Arthur remembers this incident when he joins the order two years later... Alla: > "Letters from school," said Mr. Weasley, passing Harry and Ron > identical envelopes of yellowish parchment, addressed in green > ink. "Dumbledore already knows you're here, HArry - doesn't miss a > trick, that man. You two've got them, too," he added, as Fred and > George ambled in, still in their pajamas. - p.43. > > > Alla: > > So Dumbledore knows Harry is there, eh? Silly question - how does he > know that? Trace? Silver instrument? Is this what I watched you more > closely than you thought means? > > So does Dumbledore know every single detail that happens to Harry > while at Dursleys? Or does he just know when Harry leaves Dursleys? > Bex: We've only seen one Hogwarts letter in all of it's addressed and postmarks glory - Harry's first one. I'd like to know if Harry's envelope read "The top floor bedroom, The Burrow..." I'd also like to know if Ron's letter was addressed the same way. > Alla: > "Maybe he's ill!" said Ron hopefully. > "Maybe he's left," said Harry, "because he missed out on Defense > against Dark arts job again!" > "Or he might have been sacked!" said Ron enthusiastically. "I mean, > everyone hates him-" > "Or maybe," said a very cold voice right behind them, "he's waiting to > hear why you two didn't arrive on school train" - p.78 > > > NO other reason to bring up this quote other than this is one of the > Snape's remark that I find to be funny and do not desire to strangle > him for saying it. > Bex: I love this scene - it's probably one of my favorite Snape moments. Alla: > "Ron gulped. This wasn't the first time Snape had given Harry the > impression of being able to read minds" - p.79 > > Alla: > > Well, yeah :) > Bex: We get several indications of this throughout the series, but Snape is still only relegated to the status of superb Occlumens. Either he is *that* good at reading people or he has been practicing, and people aren't giving him enough credit. And this is also the first appearance of the necklace. I wonder if Jo meant to use it all along in book 6, or if she had a different plan for it, that was eventually dropped. Even with the number of Flints we've found, it still astounds me that Jo has kept such a tight ship through 7 books. ~Bex From leahstill at hotmail.com Thu Jan 31 00:47:49 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:47:49 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181153 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: (snipped) > Nobody told us at the end of seven books that Marauders stole > Snape's precious book, so I take it that they did not steal anything > and Snape spread it out himself or with the help of his Slytherin > friends. Leah: Sorry, I can't see what point you're making here. Whether or not the book was stolen has got nothing to do with whether Snape was regularly bullied by the Marauders. (snipped) > Alla: > > Um, that can be the reaction of people who are affraid that Snape > will get up and start hexing them with Sectusemptra left and right, > no? > > Or that Malfoy and Co shows up and do the same thing with Snape. Leah: If Snape had used Sectumsempra left right and centre he would have been in very serious trouble- see McGonagall's reaction to Harry's use in HBP. Wormtail is waiting for James and Sirius to start on Snape 'with avid anticipation', and if Wormtail is not worried about Snape hexing everyone around, it's hard to think anyone else would be. We only hear about apprehension from the crowd once and that could be as well directed at James and Sirius as at Snape. We get four mentions of the crowd laughing, being entertained and cheering - doesn't sound as if they lived in terror of Snape and his vengeance. Nobody from Slytherin turns up to rescue Snape, neither do the Marauders seem in anyway concerned that they might. They're not watching their backs, James takes time out to have his so-delightful conversation with Lily. Malfoy certainly couldn't turn up. His age in OOTP is given as 41 so he's 4 to 5 years older than Snape and he would already have left Hogwarts. Leah > From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 00:50:16 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:50:16 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181154 > > zgirnius: > > Do we really think they would make a (positive) exception for > > Severus, attacking him only individually? > > > Alla: > > I do not know about "us" but I think that they certainly attacked > Snape individially and not individually, just as Snape attacked them > individually or not. > > Nobody contradicted Sirius at the end of seven books that Snape ran > with Slytherin gang. Nobody contradicted Sirius that Snape was in > close relationships with Malfoy and I think that the fact that > Narcissa came to him in HBP to save her son strengthens that > assertion. > Nobody told us at the end of seven books that Marauders stole > Snape's precious book, so I take it that they did not steal anything > and Snape spread it out himself or with the help of his Slytherin > friends. Montavilla47: Actually, there's nothing in canon about any rumor of the Marauders stealing Snape's precious book (I assumed you mean the HBP's potions book)? Or do you mean that Snape and his Slytherin friends spread the Levicorpus spell? In that case, I agree with you that there is no canon on how the Levicorpus spell became known by James. Any theory on how that happened is pretty much as valid as any other. > Zara: > > Another is a detail of SWM not mentioned by Leah. The students > whose > > reaction to the scene was "apprehensive" seem, again, to point to > a > > pattern of behavior by the Marauders that intimidated other > > students. `Fair' hexing matches with `worthy' opponents seems > > unlikely to create this reaction, IMO. > > Alla: > > Um, that can be the reaction of people who are affraid that Snape > will get up and start hexing them with Sectusemptra left and right, > no? > > Or that Malfoy and Co shows up and do the same thing with Snape. Montavilla47: Strictly speaking, it's impossible for Malfoy to show up. In DH, he was shown wearing a prefect's badge as he welcomed first-year Severus to the Slytherin table. That would mean that he was in his fifth year. Unless Lucius had to repeat several years, he would have graduated long before SWM took place. As for Rosier, Wilkes, Mulciber, or Avery, they might have shown up, but they pointed didn't. None of Snape's housemates lifted a finger. He had to be rescued by a *girl*. I'm not going to try and convince you with this next bit, but I am going to comment on what seems to me to be... somewhat puzzling and inconsistent. In OotP, when Harry confronts Sirius about SWM, Lupin explains that Snape was just a weird little oddball (or WTTE), and that James and Sirius were "the height of cool." Now, it's not impossible for Snape to be both a weird little oddball and part of a school gang. Nor is it impossible for him to be part of a gang and to be targeted by members of another gang. But it seems wrong in the dynamics of school boy groups for one group to attack the mascot of another gang without instant retaliation. So that if Snape had any value to the Future Death Eaters of Hogwarts, they'd have come running with their wands out immediately, no matter how "cool" James and Sirius are. However, if Snape is viewed as an oddball by the Slytherins and pushed out to the fringes of any Slytherin gang, then he could be attacked with impunity (as long as those meddling teachers aren't around.) Or, perhaps the Slytherins would have helped, if Snape were of a high status in his house and secretly disliked or envied. But that also seems implausible, because Snape couldn't really earn that kind of status in Slytherin, given his parents, general poverty, and personality. Montavilla47 From leahstill at hotmail.com Thu Jan 31 01:09:19 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:09:19 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181155 Just a further quick thought on the Marauders and persistant bullying. In POA, Sirius says to Wormtail: '"You always liked big friends who'd look after you, didn't you? It used to be us..."' and then a bit later, talking about Wormtail's delayed return to Voldemort: '"You'd want to be quite sure he was the biggest bully in the playground before you went back to him, wouldn't you?"' An interesting analogy. Leah (reaching pumpkin time and giving up for the night) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 01:23:28 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:23:28 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181156 > Montavilla47: > Actually, there's nothing in canon about any rumor of the Marauders > stealing Snape's precious book (I assumed you mean the HBP's > potions book)? Alla: Yeah, I know I was referring to the argument here on the board, sorry. Montavilla47: > Or do you mean that Snape and his Slytherin friends spread the > Levicorpus spell? In that case, I agree with you that there is > no canon on how the Levicorpus spell became known by James. Any > theory on how that happened is pretty much as valid as any other. Alla: Yes, that is what I meant. I am just saying that since there was no support to James and others stealing the spell, I choose to believe this one. > Montavilla47: > Strictly speaking, it's impossible for Malfoy to show up. In DH, he > was shown wearing a prefect's badge as he welcomed first-year > Severus to the Slytherin table. That would mean that he was in > his fifth year. Unless Lucius had to repeat several years, he would > have graduated long before SWM took place. Alla: Absolutely. Montavilla47: > As for Rosier, Wilkes, Mulciber, or Avery, they might have shown > up, but they pointed didn't. None of Snape's housemates lifted > a finger. He had to be rescued by a *girl*. Alla: But they were not in the vicinity, no? Snape's classmates I mean. Montavilla47: > But it seems wrong in the dynamics of school boy groups for one > group to attack the mascot of another gang without instant > retaliation. So that if Snape had any value to the Future Death > Eaters of Hogwarts, they'd have come running with their wands > out immediately, no matter how "cool" James and Sirius are. Alla: Retaliation could have happened afterwards, no? I do not see that they just should have come running immediately. Leah: If Snape had used Sectumsempra left right and centre he would have been in very serious trouble- see McGonagall's reaction to Harry's use in HBP. Alla: Yes of course if teachers ever caught him, he would have been, I agree, but I also think that teachers in Hogwarts did not see a plenty of things going on. Leah: Wormtail is waiting for James and Sirius to start on Snape 'with avid anticipation', and if Wormtail is not worried about Snape hexing everyone around, it's hard to think anyone else would be. Alla: How do you know that he is not worried? Maybe he is interested to see hexes from both sides and expects it? He is not participating, of course he would not be worried IMO. Leah: We only hear about apprehension from the crowd once and that could be as well directed at James and Sirius as at Snape. Alla: Eh, of course it could be. The possibility that it was directed at James and Sirius was already suggested, I suggested another one, that's all. It is not like it was not mentioned. Lea: > > Just a further quick thought on the Marauders and persistant bullying. > An interesting analogy. Alla: Yes, I remember that analogy :) Wormtail liked to join powerful people all right. You think Snape as Malfoy lapdog had some merit as well? From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 31 03:09:49 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:09:49 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181157 > Montavilla47:> > In OotP, when Harry confronts Sirius about SWM, Lupin explains > that Snape was just a weird little oddball (or WTTE), and that James > and Sirius were "the height of cool." > snip > > But it seems wrong in the dynamics of school boy groups for one > group to attack the mascot of another gang without instant > retaliation. So that if Snape had any value to the Future Death > Eaters of Hogwarts, they'd have come running with their wands > out immediately, no matter how "cool" James and Sirius are. Potioncat: Well, Sirius could consider Snape an oddball even if members of Snape's House did not. He has friends, but he could still be a loner. In many ways, he reminds me of Neville. Neville is a friend of Harry's, but he isn't a "friend" of Harry. Neville's often alone, and in the earlier books, is frequently picked on. The Marauders may not be watching their back in SWM because Snape is the only one of his group around. He's sitting in the shade going over his test while his Housemates are---[fill in the blank] I have the impression that Severus is frequently alone--or alone often enough that the Marauders can take advantage of the situation. At any rate, I'd be interested in how you would describe Neville. > From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 05:13:41 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:13:41 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181158 > Alla: > I do not know about "us" but I think that they certainly attacked > Snape individially and not individually, just as Snape attacked them > individually or not. zgirnius: Except there is all the canon Leah and I cited showing 'not individual' attacks by the Marauders, on Snape and on others. There is not so much as a whisper that Snape's Slytherin gang ever involved itself in the Snape/Marauders conflict. They existed, sure, and we now have confirmation some of them were likely even in Snape's year. They did evil things to Mary McDonald, possibly even using a spell Severus invented for them. (I think, to answer Montavilla's question, this would be a way for a 'little oddball' to buy some sort of acceptance by a gang). But no one ever said they together with Snape, ever did anything to one or several Marauders. This asymmetry in what we are told and shown, suggests to me we are supposed to believe there was a corresponding asymmetry in these characters' behavior towards one another. > Alla: > Um, that can be the reaction of people who are affraid that Snape > will get up and start hexing them with Sectusemptra left and right, > no? zgirnius: That's a mighty timid reaction to a guy who has already been disarmed. And as has been mentioned, it seems unlikely that, having formed such an expectation in the minds of his fellow students, Severus would still be around at school. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 06:16:30 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:16:30 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181159 > Montavilla47: > > As for Rosier, Wilkes, Mulciber, or Avery, they might have shown > > up, but they pointed didn't. None of Snape's housemates lifted > > a finger. He had to be rescued by a *girl*. > > Alla: > > But they were not in the vicinity, no? Snape's classmates I mean. Montavilla47 (again): But they should have been in the vicinity. SWM took place immediately following an O.W.L. exam. All the fifth year students were in the commons. Snape's alleged Slytherin buddies did not walk with him out of the exam hall, or acknowledge him at all. Again, that's not the way it works when you have buddies--as we see with the Marauders. They come out of the exam talking about the questions, trading comments, etc. All anyone knows about Snape, according to either Lupin or Black, was that Snape was up to his eyeballs in Dark Arts. So, if he was in with a gang in Slytherin, wouldn't they be coming up to him after class and asking him about the questions? Perhaps they were all sick in the hospital wing that day? > Montavilla47: > > > But it seems wrong in the dynamics of school boy groups for one > > group to attack the mascot of another gang without instant > > retaliation. So that if Snape had any value to the Future Death > > Eaters of Hogwarts, they'd have come running with their wands > > out immediately, no matter how "cool" James and Sirius are. > > Alla: > > Retaliation could have happened afterwards, no? I do not see that > they just should have come running immediately. > Montavilla47: Retaliation could come later. But, if they were present at the time, and they should have been (unless all ill in the hospital), retaliation is due immediately. Otherwise your gang is lame. > Lea: > > > > Just a further quick thought on the Marauders and persistant > bullying. > > > An interesting analogy. > > Alla: > > Yes, I remember that analogy :) Wormtail liked to join powerful > people all right. > > You think Snape as Malfoy lapdog had some merit as well? Montavilla47: (raises hand) I do! I don't have much to back it up with, but I think that Malfoy probably did take Severus under his wing. Malfoy had the right qualities for high-status in Slytherin. He was pureblood, he was rich, he was well-connected. With his patronage, Severus would have probably have been seen by the Marauders as running with a "gang" of older students. It's an odd thing, but when Sirius talks about Snape running with a Slytherin gang, he talks about it with a kind of distance. As though he didn't have much to do with Snape at that point. Had it been gang against gang, I think he would have mentioned that. But it's not really evidence, is it, what Sirius the dog animagi *didn't* say in the cave? From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 06:58:10 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:58:10 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181160 > Potioncat: > Well, Sirius could consider Snape an oddball even if members of > Snape's House did not. He has friends, but he could still be a loner. > In many ways, he reminds me of Neville. Neville is a friend of > Harry's, but he isn't a "friend" of Harry. Neville's often alone, and > in the earlier books, is frequently picked on. Montavilla47: I agree, Potioncat, but I think that if Neville were picked on in front of a Gryffindor--any Gryffindor--they'd help him out. After all, isn't that what Harry does in that first broom class? I think Snape might have been in Neville's position during their first years. But I think by SWM, with the older Slytherins graduated, he was probably more like Luna in fifth year. An oddball who doesn't have anyone left to care whether he gets pranked or not. > The Marauders may not be watching their back in SWM because Snape is > the only one of his group around. He's sitting in the shade going > over his test while his Housemates are---[fill in the blank] Montavilla47: Unless they have some definite project, they ought to be where all the other fifth-year students are: Near the lake, enjoying their break between the morning and afternoon test. (As I recall, they take the essay portion in the morning in Harry's fifth year, and the practical test in the afternoon.) > I have > the impression that Severus is frequently alone--or alone often > enough that the Marauders can take advantage of the situation. > > At any rate, I'd be interested in how you would describe Neville. >From Harry's perspective, Neville is a loner oddball, and pretty much a loser. However, there are plenty of clues that Harry is under- estimating his housemate. Neville does stick up for himself against Draco in PS/SS, and I don't think we ever see Draco pick on him again. But Draco isn't really interested in Neville, is he? Certainly not as interested as the Marauders were in Snape. As Leah pointed out, Lupin's language suggests that the Marauders attacked him many times. So, I would describe Neville as being like Snape in being picked on (in the first year), but who stops being picked on (by the Slytherins, anyway) once he stands up for himself. He still gets targeted by Fred and George for whatever comic value they can get. >From what Sirius says about Snape's cursing abilities, and from SWM, it seems that Snape stood up for himself as well. The difference between their situations seems to be that in Neville's case, his tormentors backed off. In Snape's case, they didn't. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 16:04:16 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:04:16 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181161 zgirnius: > > I do not know about "us" but I think that they certainly attacked > > Snape individially and not individually, just as Snape attacked > them > > individually or not. > > zgirnius: > Except there is all the canon Leah and I cited showing 'not > individual' attacks by the Marauders, on Snape and on others. Alla: I am sorry what "all the canon" on this issue? Obviously there is pensieve scene and you brought up the detention about James and Sirius hexing that other student and....? What else? I am sorry if missed another canon that was cited :( Zara: There > is not so much as a whisper that Snape's Slytherin gang ever involved > itself in the Snape/Marauders conflict. They existed, sure, and we > now have confirmation some of them were likely even in Snape's year. > They did evil things to Mary McDonald, possibly even using a spell > Severus invented for them. (I think, to answer Montavilla's question, > this would be a way for a 'little oddball' to buy some sort of > acceptance by a gang). But no one ever said they together with Snape, > ever did anything to one or several Marauders. This asymmetry in what > we are told and shown, suggests to me we are supposed to believe > there was a corresponding asymmetry in these characters' behavior > towards one another. Alla: I do not think that since we saw them not doing anything in the pensieve scene, the only extrapolation is that they never did anything ever. As you said, they existed, they did evil things. Snape run with him. So they did not interfere in pensieve scene, maybe because they were not nearby. Could it be that they never interfered in Snape's dealings with Marauders? Sure it could, I just find it unlikely. > > > Alla: > > Um, that can be the reaction of people who are afraid that Snape > > will get up and start hexing them with Sectusemptra left and right, > > no? > > zgirnius: > That's a mighty timid reaction to a guy who has already been > disarmed. And as has been mentioned, it seems unlikely that, having > formed such an expectation in the minds of his fellow students, > Severus would still be around at school. Alla: Eh, why? You have examples of people who were expelled by having a reputation of incredibly good at hexing people? In my mind that does not translate in teachers knowing it necessarily AND even if they did, it does not translate in expulsion IMO. Malfoy was not expelled for all his things, wasn't he? We know that those Slithering all became DE, you think they did not do bad things to other people, forget about Marauders? You mentioned Mary McDonald, was anybody expelled for doing whatever was done to her, whatever it was we agree that it was evil? Montavilla47: Retaliation could come later. But, if they were present at the time, and they should have been (unless all ill in the hospital), retaliation is due immediately. Otherwise your gang is lame. Alla: I just do not see how they "should have been present at the time" is necessarily true. Maybe they did not want to talk to Snape that particular day, maybe pensive did not concentrate on what was happening to them ? whether they were ill in the hospital or not, you know? Montavilla47: (raises hand) I do! I don't have much to back it up with, but I think that Malfoy probably did take Severus under his wing. Malfoy had the right qualities for high-status in Slytherin. He was pureblood, he was rich, he was well-connected. With his patronage, Severus would have probably have been seen by the Marauders as running with a "gang" of older students. Alla: So, if you believe that Malfoy took Snape under his wing, which I definitely believe as well, you think that he showed his patronage selectively or something? You do not think that Malfoy would have done whatever it takes to show to those Marauders don't you dare messing with my Severus? I mean, I am sure Marauders did not back up, but do you doubt that Malfoy indeed would have taken a stand whether we see it in Pensieve scene or not? MOntavilla47: It's an odd thing, but when Sirius talks about Snape running with a Slytherin gang, he talks about it with a kind of distance. As though he didn't have much to do with Snape at that point. Alla: I do not read any distance in that phrase. But could you clarify please ? who did not have anything to do with Snape at that point ? Sirius or Malfoy? Montavilla47: Had it been gang against gang, I think he would have mentioned that. But it's not really evidence, is it, what Sirius the dog animagi *didn't* say in the cave? Alla: I do not remember Sirius mentioning anything of the Pensieve scene in the cave either, so no I do not find it odd that he would not have mentioned it had it been gang against the gang. But for the record, I do not think it was gang against gang all the time. What I am disagreeing with is that Snape was consistently bullied by Marauders without any sort of retaliation from his side. What I am disagreeing with is the stance that Snape was being constant victim there. I know many people take that stand, I definitely do not. But I sure agree that there were could have been times when he was as in pensieve scene, I just think that there were times when they were getting back at Marauders and good, whether it was individual hexing of James or something else. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 16:33:59 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:33:59 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181162 > Alla: > We know that > those Slithering all became DE, you think they did not do bad things > to other people, forget about Marauders? Alla: Okay, this is embarassing, but in my defense my brain was forming a sentence with all those Slithering people or something :) I hope nobody was confused that I mean Slytherins :) From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 17:30:31 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:30:31 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapters 2-5 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181163 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Here we go again, some old lines that jumped at me in new light zanooda: Alla's posts made me look through some chapters of PS/SS, and I noticed that the way to open the archway to Diagon Alley in Ch.5 is a little different from the way it is described in DH, when Bellatrix!Hermione opens it in "Gringotts" chapter. In PS/SS only one brick is mentioned, with a hole appearing in it, but in DH "the bricks began to whirl and spin: a hole appeared in the middle of them" etc. This observation has nothing to do with anything, actually :-), but as we are having a post-DH look at things here ... . It seems to me that the later DH description is influenced by the SS movie - this is exactly how Hagrid opens the archway there :-). From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 31 17:32:33 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:32:33 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181164 > > Montavilla47: > > Unless they have some definite project, they ought to be where all > the other fifth-year students are: Near the lake, enjoying their > break between the morning and afternoon test. (As I recall, they > take the essay portion in the morning in Harry's fifth year, and > the practical test in the afternoon.) Pippin: It could be that Mulciber and Avery are younger than Snape. Lily does call them his "precious little Death Eater friends." Gifted children often find it easier to make friends who are older or younger than themselves. Lily might have been the only friend Snape had in his year. She's certainly the only one he pays attention to in the Sorting. I would take Snape's words about never being attacked unless it was four on one with a grain of salt, like Hagrid's claim that no wizards ever went bad unless they were in Slytherin. But in both cases it could be that in the speaker's mind certain prominent instances made them forgetful of the contrary examples. Pippin From leahstill at hotmail.com Thu Jan 31 18:18:11 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:18:11 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181165 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > zgirnius: > > Except there is all the canon Leah and I cited showing 'not > > individual' attacks by the Marauders, on Snape and on others. > > Alla: > > I am sorry what "all the canon" on this issue? Obviously there is > pensieve scene and you brought up the detention about James and > Sirius hexing that other student and....? What else? I am sorry if > missed another canon that was cited :( In message 181145, I quoted what Lupin had to say about attacks on Snape, when he was discussing SWM with Harry. Actually, there is another argument for regular bullying of Snape by the Marauders as a gang and for no comeback from Slytherins on Snape's behalf which can be drawn from that discussion. Harry is very disturbed by what he has seen in SWM, and by what it makes him think about James. He takes some risks to talk to Sirius and Lupin, and clearly both men understand what Harry is feeling, because they are silent at first and then ask Harry not to judge James on his actions at 15. If this was an unusual one-off attack by the gang on Snape, perhaps as a result of the Prank, as Carol has previously suggested, it would be as easy as anything to give Harry reassurance by saying, "Yes, we were gits on that occasion, Harry, but the fact is, it only happened that once because....and otherwise it was just hexing between your dad and Snape one to one". Similarly they could say, "Yes, that would have looked really bad, Harry, and we're not proud of it, but what you've got to realise is that it was just one incident in a whole series of attacks by us against Slyterins and by Snape's Slytherin gang against anyone of us. Rest assured Harry, they acted in the same way to us". Either explanation would have given Harry a lot of reassurance, and there is no reason why Sirius and Lupin would not have said it if it were true, as it puts them in a better light too. The fact that they don't give Harry those sort of explanations suggest that they're not true, and to their credit, Sirius and Lupin are being honest with Harry. Harry actually says '"he just attacked Snape for no good reason..."' and neither Sirius or Lupin give a reason like I've suggested above. What we get from Lupin is the comments I quoted in my earlier post, about never telling James and Sirius to lay off Snape, and never telling them they were 'out of order' and Sirius' comment that Lupin sometimes made them ashamed of their treatment of Snape. None of that reads like there was a gang war going on. >> > > Alla: > > > Um, that can be the reaction of people who are afraid that Snape > > > will get up and start hexing them with Sectusemptra left and > right, > > > no? > > > > zgirnius: > > That's a mighty timid reaction to a guy who has already been > > disarmed. And as has been mentioned, it seems unlikely that, > having > > formed such an expectation in the minds of his fellow students, > > Severus would still be around at school. > > > Alla: > > Eh, why? You have examples of people who were expelled by having a > reputation of incredibly good at hexing people? In my mind that does > not translate in teachers knowing it necessarily AND even if they > did, it does not translate in expulsion IMO. Leah: I made the comment about Snape being in serious trouble for Sectumsempra, in reply to a post of Alla's, in which it was suggested that the watching crowd in SWM might have been apprehensive because Snape might have been going to use Sectumsempra 'right and left'. To clarify, I read that as implying the same sort of uncontrolled use of Sectumsempra as Harry uses on Draco. If Snape had done anything approaching that to a crowd of bystanders, he would almost certainly have been expelled. I wasn't meaning to imply simple hexing would get someone expelled. Alla (snipped) You mentioned Mary > McDonald, was anybody expelled for doing whatever was done to her, > whatever it was we agree that it was evil? Leah: Nothing was actually done to Mary Macdonald. Lily says that Mulciber 'tried' to do something to her. Since we don't actually know what it was, we only have Lily's word that it was 'evil'. I would like to know what was attempted before I agree. > > Alla: > > So, if you believe that Malfoy took Snape under his wing, which I > definitely believe as well, you think that he showed his patronage > selectively or something? > > You do not think that Malfoy would have done whatever it takes to > show to those Marauders don't you dare messing with my Severus? > > I mean, I am sure Marauders did not back up, but do you doubt that > Malfoy indeed would have taken a stand whether we see it in Pensieve > scene or not? Leah: As Montavilla and I have already said, Malfoy was only at school with Snape for a short period because of the age gap between them and was not at Hogwarts during the time of SWM. Possibly Lucius did protect Snape for Snape's first year or couple of years, we don't know. There's clearly some connection between the Malfoys and Snape and I would have really liked more backstory on that, but Sirius' 'lapdog' comment could refer to schooldays or to later patronage of Snape by Malfoy post-Hogwarts, we don't know. We also don't know whether if Malfoy did protect Snape at Hogwarts, Lucius did it for the honour of Slytherin, because he liked Snape or because he was getting something in return from Snape. He's unlilely to have been doing it from the goodness of his heart. Leah From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 18:52:02 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:52:02 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181166 > Montavilla47: > > After all, isn't that what Harry does in that first broom class? Mike: Hee, you calling it "broom" class, I couldn't help thinking about a mixed group of eleven-year-olds learning how to sweep. All the girls doing it correctly the first time, all the boys making a worse mess and eventually batting each other like a pillow fight with brooms.:D > Montavilla47: > > I think Snape might have been in Neville's position during > their first years. But I think by SWM, with the older Slytherins > graduated, he was probably more like Luna in fifth year. An > oddball who doesn't have anyone left to care whether he gets > pranked or not. Mike: But in one of the memories, Lily is talking about Sev's friends that he's hanging around with during his fifth year. "We are, Sev, but I don't like some of the people you're hanging around with! I'm sorry, but I detest Avery and Mulciber!" <673, US> This is post-prank but before SWM. And Lily adds "I don't understand how you can be friends with them." <674> I think canon tells us that Sev does still have friends around. > > Potioncat: > > The Marauders may not be watching their back in SWM because > > Snape is the only one of his group around. He's sitting in the > > shade going over his test while his Housemates are--- [fill in > > the blank] > > Montavilla47: > > Unless they have some definite project, they ought to be where all > the other fifth-year students are: Mike: Two possibilities - Sev was shown absentmindedly wandering outside with his nose in his DADA test. Who says his housemates even went outside? Or maybe the rest of the Slytherins headed to their favorite spot down by the Forbidden Forest, out of sight and out of earshot of the beech tree where the attack happened. The other possibility - Avery, Mulciber, and most of *Sev's* crowd were in a different year. I don't think that crowd was very big in the first place. And Sev already showed the propensity to impress and become a "gang member" with an older crowd. I had the impression that Avery and Mulciber were older than fifth year, and were using more advanced spells. Therefore, I didn't think Snape had any mates around at this time. > Montavilla47: > > From what Sirius says about Snape's cursing abilities, and from > SWM, it seems that Snape stood up for himself as well. The > difference between their situations seems to be that in Neville's > case, his tormentors backed off. In Snape's case, they didn't. Mike: I've been reading these exchanges and thinking my bud Sirius needs some defending. Sirius speaks of Sev's early cursing ability from the perspective of one on the receiving end of those hexes, or at least saw Sev using them on others. Some people wondered if Sirius made up that first year claim. But one doesn't make up something that shows your opponent to be stronger than you. Then, we've been shown that Sev made friends with older Slyths. All the clues point to Lucius taking Sev under his wing from day one and that Snape aligned himself with the Malfoys enough for the "Lapdog" comment to be legitimate, if outdated at the time of its utterance. This would also put him at an advantage over the Marauders in their early years. During Harry's years there were encounters between Gryffs and Slyths of different years that put people in the Hospital Wing. So I have no problem picturing Sev's older friends helping out with Marauder encounters. In Sev's later years, many of his friends having graduated, he was more likely to be at a disadvantage numerically. And, yes, the Marauders have become bullies, I am forced to admit that with at least regards to Sev. But I find the clues of Sev's early years with the upper hand giving the Marauders motivation for *getting back* at the "little oddball" that bested them when they were younger. BTW, I'll bet it was finally 4:1 by their seventh year, but it seems Snape "never lost an oppurtunity to curse James" even then. Some will point to the train scene and say Sev wasn't the type to start the hostilities. I say the memories show that Sev was two different people, depending whether he was around Lily or not. He's evidently been using the term "Mudblood" on everyone besides Lily. He hangs with Slyths that use what Lily calls Dark Magic and I find it hard to believe that Sev stands to the side and watches all the action, not if he was the mosy accomplished first year at hexes. Some point to the detention file of Sirius and James as proof of their bulllying. First, Harry gets plenty of detentions and none of them were for bullying. Second, Snape picked the Sirius and James files and we see none of the others from that era. Maybe there were many more detention-worthy encounters in those years, we don't know. But it seemed like the times fostered more open encounters by budding DEs that would lead to escalating the number of detentions. Lastly, Sirius allowed as how Snape is a slippery character, smart enough to keep himself off the radar (hell, even Bella says this). Again, not something Sirius would make up, admitting Snape was smarter about staying out of trouble. So, yeah, the Marauders, or at least Sirius and James, were bullies. As much as I like them, and as much as I admire their magical abilities and propensity for mischief, I must admit that they included some bullying in their repertoire. But like Snape's teaching style in the WW seems perfectlyt acceptable, so do the type of pranks the Marauders pull. They get detentions, not indictments. I read your FF that you linked, Motavilla - very nicely done and plausible to a degree. However, I do not buy Sev's innocence in the Prank (I realize you wrote it before DH, but that was my opinion before DH also). I find him the most culpable in the whole affair. Nobody lured him there, he seems to have been proposing the Lupin werewolf scenario for some time to at least Lily, he knew it was the full moon, he's seen Poppy taking Remus out there and evidently seen the other three Marauders go in there too. As I said before, I think he took the "if they can do it, I can do it" attitude. That's the ONLY way I could fathom Sev listening to Sirius. Sev confronting Sirius with "I know where you go on full moon nights" and Sirius in due course responding with "Get a branch, push the knot, if you're so tough" type of challenge. Of course Sirius leaves out the Animagi angle, which James evidently found a little unfair. Mike From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 20:00:40 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:00:40 -0000 Subject: CoS chapters 6-10, post DH look Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181168 Professor Mcgonagall's classes were always hard work, but today was especially difficult. Everything Harry had learned last year seemed to have leaked out of his head during the summer. He was supposed to be turning beetle into a button, but all he managed to do was to give his beetle a lot of exercise as it scuttled over the desktop avoiding his wand" - p.95 Alla: Nothing new, just sympathise with forgetting material over the summer and find it hilarious that "he managed to give beetle a lot of exercise" " Like I don't know. An' bangin' on about some banshee he banished. If one word of it was true, I'll eat my kettle" - p.115 Alla: Looks like Hagrid was among those who knew that Lockhart is a fraud. Good for him if you ask me. :) "If we hadn't married Muggles we'd've died out" - p.116 Alla: Not that I really wish to get into that famous introduction about Mudbloods, etc, but did he not meant to say muggle- borns here? "Hagrid wasn't supposed to use magic. He had been expelled from Hogwarts in his third year, but Harry never found out why - any mention of the matter and Hagrid would clear his throat loudly and become mysteriously deaf until the subject was changed." - p.118 Alla: Wait a second. It seems to me that Hagrid can keep secrets very well when he chooses to here. Um, don't you think that his talkativeness in PS/SS may have been deliberate then? "Dumbledore was giving Harry a searching look. His twinkling light blue gaze made Harry feel as though he were being X-rayed. Innocent till proven guilty, Severus," he said firmly" - p.144 Alla: No, really? And here I thought you already read that he is innocent Albus. "If a long succession of Hogwarts 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-" - p.152 Alla: Oh the Slytherin and his Chamber, but I am bringing up this quote for a different reason. First - love how casually it is mentioned that women hold the Headmistresses positions. I am also wondering about just because wizard does not use dark powers does not mean he can't. Another hint that DD may have used them in the past? Or maybe it refers not only to Dumbledore? Oh, and Miss Pennyfeather? Too funny that. "I can mend bones in a second - but growing them back-" - p. 174 Alla: To me just another remainder of how different WW is in some aspects. "But, Albus... surely... who?" "The question is not who," said Dumbledore, his eyes on Collin. "The question is, how..." - p.181 Alla: This quote was underlined in my copy of CoS from past reading, that means that I may have asked this question already, but I am still unsure of answer. So Dumbledore KNEW who opened the chamber? Oy. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 20:27:57 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:27:57 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181169 Alla wrote: > > Nobody contradicted Sirius at the end of seven books that Snape ran > with Slytherin gang. Nobody contradicted Sirius that Snape was in > close relationships with Malfoy and I think that the fact that > Narcissa came to him in HBP to save her son strengthens that > assertion. > I conclude from this that there were plenty of times when Snape was > not outnumbered at all, while of course sometimes he could have been > and we saw one of those times IMO. Carol responds: I think we agree here. At any rate, my point is that Severus could hold his own one on one. snape tells Harry that the Marauders never attacked him unless it was "four on one"--I guess that includes a public two-on-one attack in which Wortmatil cheered them on and Prefect Lupin did nothing. that's the only attack we see, and it was definitely a sneak attack. Severus's quick reflexes aren't enough, nor is his extensive knowledge of hexes and curses (some of them invented by the HBP himself) because he's outnumbered and they already have their wands drawn. To respond to the thread in general rather than specifically to Alla here, I don't think the fact that they bully other people two on one (the kid with the swelled head) or that James, at least, hexes people in the hallways simply because they annoy him is relevant here. I'm not questioning that they were arrogant, bullying gits, or that Sirius, in particular, seems to have hated Severus (though Severus's animosity, IMO, was primarily for James, who initiate the enmity in the first place and flirted with Lily). My point, and I think I agree with Alla here, is that we shouldn't look at Severus as a poor little helpless victim. They attacked him two (or four) on one because if they attacked him individually and openly, he'd have given them a run for their money, or perhaps beaten them. He certainly could already do nonverbal spells (his own invented Levicorpus and its countercurse is proof of that), I have no idea whether he was already learning Occlumency and Legilimency, the latter of which seems to be at least partly a natural ability if Voldemort is any indication. So I'm quite sure that they attacked him two on one, or three or four on one, because that was the only way to soundly defeat and humiliate him (which, IMO, they wanted to do after he found out that Moony was a werewolf by entering the Shrieking Shack. Of course, they're conveniently forgetting who put him up to it). Zara: > > Another is a detail of SWM not mentioned by Leah. The students whose reaction to the scene was "apprehensive" seem, again, to point to a pattern of behavior by the Marauders that intimidated other students. `Fair' hexing matches with `worthy' opponents seems unlikely to create this reaction, IMO. Carol responds: Here, I partially agree with you. There's no question that Sirius and James together and James alone bullied other students, and I think that's responsible for the apprehension. However, they may have feared retaliation from Severus, who, according to Black, was "famous" for his fascination with the Dark Arts. If you get the strongest students in the school together in a fight, someone is likely to get hurt. Severus, of course, was at a disadvantage (and his own gang wasn't stepping in to help him in this instance), so he was the more likely to be hurt in this instance. Of course, part of the apprehension could have related to a teacher coming out and all three boys getting in serious trouble. Alla: > > Um, that can be the reaction of people who are affraid that Snape will get up and start hexing them with Sectusemptra left and right, no? Carol responds: I doubt it. He couldn't have used Sectumsempra at school or he'd have been expelled. I still say that the little cutting hex he uses on James can't be Sectumsempra because Sectumsempra is Dark magic and doesn't heal without the complicated countercurse that only Snape seems to know (and perhaps Weverus hadn't invented it yet). James's cut seems to be minor; either he could heal it himself or Madam Pomfrey could with a wave of her wand (cf. Dumbledore healing his own cut in the cave scene in HBP). I think that Sectumsempra ("for enemies" was invented after this scene, and perhaps as a result of it). While some of the apprehension could have been for James and Sirius being attacked by Severus, I think the majority of it had to be for them attacking him, simply because they were bullies and he, in this instance, at least, was clearly their victim. (But had James alone challenged him openly, without his having been caught off-guard with his mind on the DADA exam, I think the results would have been quite different.) Alla: > Or that Malfoy and Co shows up and do the same thing with Snape. Carol: Lucius Malfoy couldn't have shown up. He was five years older than Severus and long since out of school. Bellatrix was even older. The only Slytherins present were those in Severus's own year (perhaps Mulciber and Avery among them), the kids who had just finished taking the DADA exam. That they didn't help him shows, I suppose, the Slytherin instinct for self-preservation. Evidently, he didn't hold it against them. (He certainly didn't want help from Lily, but perhaps his Slytherin friends sticking up for him would have been different. Maybe they respected his abilities and realized that this was his fight?) The relationship between Severus Snape and Lucius Malfoy began as a fifth- or sixth-year Prdfect welcoming a little first-year to Slytherin. Lucius might have been a kind of mentor (or "patron" ) to Sev for his first year or two, which would explain Sirius Black's "lap dog" comment, but they could not have been close friends. Sev was a child and Lucius almost an adult when they were in school together, and, as I said, Lucius was nowhere in sight during SWM. He'd have been about twenty-one years old and an ambitious young DE, probably already married to Narcissa at this point. > > > Carol: > > > Just because he was skinny and nerdy doesn't mean he couldn't cast a mean curse--and invent them as well, as we learn in HBP. > > > > zgirnius: > > As, indeed, he does in SWM, when not being choked, flipped upside down, and dropped on the ground by his two attackers. No one is suggesting he was a victim of bullying because, as an individual, he was weak magically, or spineless. We are suggesting he was outnumbered. Carol: Good. Then we agree. He was not only outnumbered but caught off-guard, too caught up in his DADA exam questions and mentally rehearsing his answers, al al Hermione, to see them sneaking up on him, wands out. But you're also suggesting that they made a habit of bullying him. (I Personally thought that his angry words about "four on one" to Harry were an exaggeration born of fury, frustration, and hatred of James). If they did make a habit of attacking him as a group, it could not have been because he was the sort of weakling that bullies like to pick on (cf. Mark Evans in OoP). It could only be because they particularly disliked him (in James's case, because of Lily). Maybe he represented Slytherin to him. "Because he exists" somehow does not explain the situation. > Zara: > > Also, the fact that he may on occasion have initiated one-on-one hexing with James, and James may have retaliated in kind (especially when hexing in public as a group activity could have annoyed the new girlfriend in 7th year ) does not preclude his having been bullied by James *and his gang* on other occasions. Carol: True. But it does explain why they preferred to attack him as a pair or a group. Alone, he was more than a match for them. Two or more on one, especially caught off-guard, they could succeed in tormenting him (and punishing him for wanting to get them in trouble--and, gee, I wonder why he'd want that to happen?). Carol, who doubts that the Hogwarts students as a group perceived Severus as a victim, though they must have perceived James and Sirius as bullies, or that he percieved himself that way From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 31 20:31:45 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:31:45 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapters 2-5 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181170 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > > > Here we go again, some old lines that jumped at me in new light > > > zanooda: > > Alla's posts made me look through some chapters of PS/SS, and I > noticed that the way to open the archway to Diagon Alley in Ch.5 is a > little different from the way it is described in DH, when > Bellatrix!Hermione opens it in "Gringotts" chapter. In PS/SS only one > brick is mentioned, with a hole appearing in it, but in DH "the > bricks began to whirl and spin: a hole appeared in the middle of them" > etc. > > This observation has nothing to do with anything, actually :-), but as > we are having a post-DH look at things here ... . It seems to me that > the later DH description is influenced by the SS movie - this is > exactly how Hagrid opens the archway there :-). Geoff: interestingly, I wonder if the way it opened in "the medium which dare not speak its name" was what JKR visualised. In "The Philosopher's Stone" chapter 5, Hagrid counted bricks up and along before tapping - which is what he did in the DVD - and this outcome seems to be the logical way of doing it. After all, if the description in the first book is accurate then, as the hole grew bigger, the other bricks had got to go *somewhere*. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 20:44:21 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:44:21 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181171 > Montavilla47: > Retaliation could come later. But, if they were present at the time, > and they should have been (unless all ill in the hospital), > retaliation > is due immediately. > > Otherwise your gang is lame. > > Alla: > > I just do not see how they "should have been present at the time" is > necessarily true. Maybe they did not want to talk to Snape that > particular day, maybe pensive did not concentrate on what was > happening to them ? whether they were ill in the hospital or not, > you know? Montavilla47: Because the scene is presented as being in front of a large crowd of students, who have all come out of an O.W.L. exam. So, it's really weird that if Snape were a gang, and his gang members were also at that O.W.L. (which they should have been if they were in his year), that he wouldn't hang out with them--especially since he'd be the go-to guy for D.A.D.A. questions, what with all the interest in it. I like the explanation that they were all older or younger than he was. That would explain why they weren't there with all the other fifth-year students. I would hope they were older, because the idea of "ickle firsties" Avery and Mulciber attempting to hex Lily's friend Mary is more amusing than alarming. Then again, Mary could be a first year, too, couldn't she? We don't know anything about her except that Mulciber attempted to something "evil" to her. I wonder how often Lily ran up to stop fights between students. Was she like Hermione with SPEW? Maybe Lily was known for her righteous indignation--which might explain why neither Severus nor James takes her very seriously. Then again, maybe it's just as conventional wisdom has it. James doesn't take her seriously because he's cool and Severus doesn't take her seriously because he's evil. > Montavilla47: > (raises hand) I do! I don't have much to back it up with, but > I think that Malfoy probably did take Severus under his wing. > > Malfoy had the right qualities for high-status in Slytherin. > He was pureblood, he was rich, he was well-connected. With > his patronage, Severus would have probably have been > seen by the Marauders as running with a "gang" of older > students. > > Alla: > > So, if you believe that Malfoy took Snape under his wing, which I > definitely believe as well, you think that he showed his patronage > selectively or something? Montavilla47: No, but I believe that Lucius graduated at the end of Severus's third year, rather than being held back ala Marcus Flint. Once Malfoy left school, he would lose any influence he had among the students still attending. He could and probably did help Severus once Severus was out of school, but inside? He wasn't a governor back then, most likely. Even as governor, he doesn't have any say about what goes on in the school beyond temporarily sacking Dumbledore. And we saw how well that powerplay worked. Alla: > You do not think that Malfoy would have done whatever it takes to > show to those Marauders don't you dare messing with my Severus? Montavilla47: I think he would might have, if Severus asked for help. I'm not sure that Severus would. I'm also not sure that Lucius wouldn't think that a bit of bullying would toughen Severus up. Alla: > I mean, I am sure Marauders did not back up, but do you doubt that > Malfoy indeed would have taken a stand whether we see it in Pensieve > scene or not? Montavilla47: I'm positive that Lucius wouldn't, since he was long gone from Hogwarts. > MOntavilla47: > It's an odd thing, but when Sirius talks about Snape > running with a Slytherin gang, he talks about it with a > kind of distance. As though he didn't have much to do > with Snape at that point. > > Alla: > > I do not read any distance in that phrase. But could you clarify > please ? who did not have anything to do with Snape at that point ? > Sirius or Malfoy? I meant Sirius. They way Sirius talks about Snape and the Gang, it's as though they are people he occasionally notices sitting together in the Great Hall or across the courtyard. Not people that he's engaged with in schoolyard hostilities. I mean, imagine if it were Harry saying, "Oh, yes. Pansy Parkinson. A Death Eater? Well, she used to hang out with a gang of Slytherins who nearly all became Death Eaters. Malfoy. Crabbe, and.... Goyle, I think." Of course, it's odd to being with, because one those gang members is his own cousin, and he refers to her only as "Mrs. Lestrange." > Montavilla47: > Had it been gang against gang, I think he would have > mentioned that. But it's not really evidence, is it, what > Sirius the dog animagi *didn't* say in the cave? > > Alla: > I do not remember Sirius mentioning anything of the Pensieve scene > in the cave either, so no I do not find it odd that he would not > have mentioned it had it been gang against the gang. But for the > record, I do not think it was gang against gang all the time. What I > am disagreeing with is that Snape was consistently bullied by > Marauders without any sort of retaliation from his side. Montavilla47: Well, then we really don't have a disagreement. Because I don't believe that Snape was consistently bullied by the Marauders without any sort of retaliation from his side, either. I think Snape made certain to retaliate as much as he could. If you were to assert, though, that the Pensieve scene was the *only* time that the Marauders ever targeted Snape, then we would have a disagreement, since Lupin admits that James continued to hex Snape through seventh year, and his language implies that there were other incidents--incidents that he couldn't or didn't attempt to stop, but which he did make James and Sirius feel ashamed about. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 20:59:38 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:59:38 -0000 Subject: Marauders and Snape WAS :student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181172 > > Alla: > > > > I am sorry what "all the canon" on this issue? Obviously there is > > pensieve scene and you brought up the detention about James and > > Sirius hexing that other student and....? What else? I am sorry if > > missed another canon that was cited :( Lea: > In message 181145, I quoted what Lupin had to say about attacks on > Snape, when he was discussing SWM with Harry. Alla: I went back and reread the message. I do not see how it shows that Snape was constantly attacked by them together. Did I ever suggested you to lay off Snape to me says that they sure attacked Snape, which I am not saying they did not. I am just saying that Snape and his friends responded in kind. Just as Pippin says I take Snape's never at the end of HBP with the big grain of salt. I am sure they did, sometimes and sometimes it ended badly for Snape too, I am not arguing with it. And, um Snape's creation of Sectusemptra "for enemies" to me says that Snape had plenty of enemies. I think we have different ideas how Snape made those enemies, that's all. Lea: > Actually, there is another argument for regular bullying of Snape by > the Marauders as a gang and for no comeback from Slytherins on > Snape's behalf which can be drawn from that discussion. > > The fact that they don't give Harry those sort of explanations > suggest that they're not true, and to their credit, Sirius and Lupin > are being honest with Harry. Harry actually says '"he just attacked > Snape for no good reason..."' and neither Sirius nor Lupin gives a > reason like I've suggested above. > None of that reads like there was a gang war going on. Alla: At the time of this conversation I did not get a feel that we were supposed to learn of Snape's activities yet though. As in creation of Sectusemptra, etc. I mean, they are pretty much said - we were gits, but then there was a lot of hexing going on too. I just do not see how the gang war filled in that conversation. After all, Snape was turned upside down by his own creation, by his own curse turned back on him which as turns out in HBP whole school ( or half a school at least) knew. It told me that something more than just Marauders' bullying Snape all the time was happening. > Leah: Nothing was actually done to Mary Macdonald. Lily says that > Mulciber 'tried' to do something to her. Since we don't actually > know what it was, we only have Lily's word that it was 'evil'. I > would like to know what was attempted before I agree. Alla: Well yeah since Lily in the series seems to be the embodiment of all that's good and light ( IMO of course) I definitely take her word that it was evil. > Leah: As Montavilla and I have already said, Malfoy was only at > school with Snape for a short period because of the age gap between > them and was not at Hogwarts during the time of SWM. Possibly > Lucius did protect Snape for Snape's first year or couple of years, > we don't know. Alla: Well,yes, but other Slytherins whom Malfoy was friendly with were still there, I think. If Malfoy established his patronage before he left, it seems to me that others would continue it. Speculating of course. Lea: >There's clearly some connection between the Malfoys > and Snape and I would have really liked more backstory on that, but > Sirius' 'lapdog' comment could refer to schooldays or to later > patronage of Snape by Malfoy post-Hogwarts, we don't know. Alla: Yes, backstory would be nice. I doubt though that Sirius knew much about Snape post Hogwarts, so I am not sure how it can relate to post Hogwarts days. JMO. Lea: We also > don't know whether if Malfoy did protect Snape at Hogwarts, Lucius > did it for the honor of Slytherin, because he liked Snape or > because he was getting something in return from Snape. He's > unlikely to have been doing it from the goodness of his heart. > Alla: Honestly, I do not see how it makes any difference as to why Malfoy protected Snape. To me all it matters that he did ( I mean I believe he did, I am not asking you to :). Montavilla47: I like the explanation that they were all older or younger than he was. Alla: Sure, me too. Alla: > > So, if you believe that Malfoy took Snape under his wing, which I > definitely believe as well, you think that he showed his patronage > selectively or something? Montavilla47: No, but I believe that Lucius graduated at the end of Severus's third year, rather than being held back ala Marcus Flint. Once Malfoy left school, he would lose any influence he had among the students still attending Alla: I do not know why I keep implying that Malfoy would have helped after pensieve scene, I know that he graduated, LOL. But as to his influence disappearing, I am not so sure. Just look at Tommy dear, who formed his merry gang and not all of them were in the same year, no? And if Lucius and his friends were little DE helpers together ( speculation) while they were in school and Lucius out of school, not sure that his influence would disappear at all. But again to be sure, I think that other members would have helped on their own too with our without Lucius. Montavilla47: I meant Sirius. They way Sirius talks about Snape and the Gang, it's as though they are people he occasionally notices sitting together in the Great Hall or across the courtyard. Not people that he's engaged with in schoolyard hostilities. Alla: Thanks for clarifying, but maybe it is just the way of speaking, same as he referred to Bella as you mentioned. Montavilla47: Well, then we really don't have a disagreement. Because I don't believe that Snape was consistently bullied by the Marauders without any sort of retaliation from his side, either. I think Snape made certain to retaliate as much as he could. If you were to assert, though, that the Pensieve scene was the *only* time that the Marauders ever targeted Snape, then we would have a disagreement, since Lupin admits that James continued to hex Snape through seventh year, and his language implies that there were other incidents--incidents that he couldn't or didn't attempt to stop, but which he did make James and Sirius feel ashamed about. Alla: I cannot exclude other accidents for sure. But the mutual hexing in the seventh year to me is very different from Pensieve scene. So, I do not see other accidents like this in canon, but I definitely cannot exclude them. As you said Lupin's language implies them ( or to me may imply them, since to me did I ever tell you can relay to mutual hexing as well). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 21:04:42 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:04:42 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181173 > Montavilla47: > > As for Rosier, Wilkes, Mulciber, or Avery, they might have shown up, but they pointed didn't. None of Snape's housemates lifted a finger. He had to be rescued by a *girl*. > > Alla: > > But they were not in the vicinity, no? Snape's classmates I mean. Carol responds: The entire fifth-year class had just taken their DADA exam. However, the only people whose whereabouts are mentioned are Severus, who quietly studies his exam questions alone, MWPP, who sit around watching James catch the Snitch while Remus studies and Sirius moans about being bored, and Lily, who's sitting by the lake with a bunch of other girls, probably her Gryffindor dormmates but possibly girls from other Houses as well given that she's "popular." No mention is specifically made of Hufflepuffs, Ravenclaws, or Slytherins other than Severus. The Slytherin boys in his year, Avery and Mulciber among them, may or may not have witnessed the bullying. They were not with him when he wandered off alone, but that was his choice. He was more interested in his DADA OWL than in socializing. (A hint of young Snape's "ambition," which we also glimpse in "The Prince's Tale"? Poor Sevvie. I think he wanted to be "great" and never achieved it thanks to Voldemort and the mistake of joining the DEs.) > > Montavilla47: > > > But it seems wrong in the dynamics of school boy groups for one group to attack the mascot of another gang without instant retaliation. So that if Snape had any value to the Future Death Eaters of Hogwarts, they'd have come running with their wands out immediately, no matter how "cool" James and Sirius are. > Carol: Not necessarily. We don't know whether they were present or how Severus would have reacted if they'd tried to help him. Maybe he didn't want their help any more than he wanted Lily's because help would have implied that he couldn't have handled this himself. Or maybe they were simply interested in self-preservation. He considered Mulciber and Avery, at least, to be his friends (We don't know whether Wilkes and Rosier were in his year or closer to Lucius Malfoy's age. Same with the always forgotten Rabastan Lestrange), and their nonparticipation seems to have had no effect on his later decision to become a Death Eater (as they were already planning to do). Nor do I think that his being a Half-Blood from a poor family would have mattered nearly as much as his brilliant mind. Possibly, they thought that the inventor of Levicorpus and Muffliato and the toe-nail hex and Langlock and all those potions improvements was just as "cool" as the Gryffindors considered James and Sirius to be. Once he invented Sectumsempra, they certainly would have thought so. (Consider the reaction of Harry and Ron to the HBP's Potions book. Harry studies it at night because he finds the notations so enthralling and considers the Prince to be his "friend" because he's so helpful. And Ron says (correctly, IMO) that the Prince was a genius. I'm quite sure that his Slytherin friends held the same view. And I'm pretty sure that they wanted Severus on their side when they got out of school and joined the DEs. Leah: > If Snape had used Sectumsempra left right and centre he would have been in very serious trouble- see McGonagall's reaction to Harry's use in HBP. > > Alla: > Yes of course if teachers ever caught him, he would have been, I agree, but I also think that teachers in Hogwarts did not see a plenty of things going on. Carol: He could not possibly have used an unhealable cutting curse without being caught. The teachers, DD, and Madam Pomfrey would have known that it was Dark magic, and she would not have been able to heal the victim of the curse, any more than Mrs. Weasley was able to put George's ear back on. At most, they could have stopped the bleeding but not healed the cut itself. Sectumsempra means "cut always." IOW, the cut or injury (a severed hand, if Snape had hit the DE instead of George) is permanent unless someone recites the countercurse (and Snape seems to be the only one who knows it). DD tells Harry in HBP that Snape knows much more about the Dark Arts than Madam Pomfrey, which is why Snape, not Madam Pomfrey, stops the curse on Katie Bell, and why DD summoned Snape, not Madam Pomfrey, when he stupidly put on the Peverell ring. Carol, who thinks that if Severus were universally regarded as an evil, Dark Wizard in the making, Lily would have ended their friendship much sooner and James would have come up with a better justification than "because he exists" for attacking him unprovoked From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 21:12:20 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:12:20 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181174 > > Montavilla47: > > > > Unless they have some definite project, they ought to be where all > > the other fifth-year students are: > > Mike: > Two possibilities - Sev was shown absentmindedly wandering outside > with his nose in his DADA test. Who says his housemates even went > outside? Or maybe the rest of the Slytherins headed to their favorite > spot down by the Forbidden Forest, out of sight and out of earshot of > the beech tree where the attack happened. Montavilla47: If they went to their "favorite spot," why wouldn't Snape go with them? Especially if there were ongoing hostilities between his gang and the Marauders? Mike: > The other possibility - Avery, Mulciber, and most of *Sev's* crowd > were in a different year. I don't think that crowd was very big in > the first place. And Sev already showed the propensity to impress > and become a "gang member" with an older crowd. I had the impression > that Avery and Mulciber were older than fifth year, and were using > more advanced spells. Therefore, I didn't think Snape had any mates > around at this time. Montavilla47: I think this is the likeliest answer. And it's quite possible in that case that the older students would retaliate for what happened to Snape that day. Of course, if that were the case, I'd expect Lupin or Sirius to mention it when Harry asks about the incident. It would go a long way to soothe his distress. > > Montavilla47: > > > > From what Sirius says about Snape's cursing abilities, and from > > SWM, it seems that Snape stood up for himself as well. The > > difference between their situations seems to be that in Neville's > > case, his tormentors backed off. In Snape's case, they didn't. > > Mike: > I've been reading these exchanges and thinking my bud Sirius needs > some defending. Sirius speaks of Sev's early cursing ability from the > perspective of one on the receiving end of those hexes, or at least > saw Sev using them on others. Some people wondered if Sirius made up > that first year claim. But one doesn't make up something that shows > your opponent to be stronger than you. Montavilla47: For the record, I don't believe that Sirius made up that claim. I think he said it because it was true. (Of course, that just makes Snape all the more awesome, so hey, win-win!) Mike: > Then, we've been shown that Sev made friends with older Slyths. All > the clues point to Lucius taking Sev under his wing from day one and > that Snape aligned himself with the Malfoys enough for the "Lapdog" > comment to be legitimate, if outdated at the time of its utterance. > This would also put him at an advantage over the Marauders in their > early years. > In Sev's later years, many of his friends having graduated, he was > more likely to be at a disadvantage numerically. And, yes, the > Marauders have become bullies, I am forced to admit that with at > least regards to Sev. But I find the clues of Sev's early years with > the upper hand giving the Marauders motivation for *getting back* at > the "little oddball" that bested them when they were younger. Montavilla47: I agree with this assessment. I also think there probably was a shift in advantage, from Snape's in the first three years, to the Marauders in the later years. Also, I have no problem with the idea that, although we see James and Sirius behaving somewhat worse than Snape in that train compartment, Severus was likely to be a brat and was plenty rude to all the Gryffindors (except LIly.) Mike: > Some point to the detention file of Sirius and James as proof of > their bulllying. First, Harry gets plenty of detentions and none of > them were for bullying. Second, Snape picked the Sirius and James > files and we see none of the others from that era. Maybe there were > many more detention-worthy encounters in those years, we don't know. > But it seemed like the times fostered more open encounters by budding > DEs that would lead to escalating the number of detentions. Lastly, > Sirius allowed as how Snape is a slippery character, smart enough to > keep himself off the radar (hell, even Bella says this). Again, not > something Sirius would make up, admitting Snape was smarter about > staying out of trouble. Montavilla47: Okay, a couple things about those files. One: The files were not sort by perpetrator. They were sorted chronologically. (Why were they filed by date? Goodness knows, except that it seems to be the very least useful way of sorting detention files, which is in keeping with wizard logic.) So, while Snape was making Harry look for the years James and Sirius were running around making trouble, he wasn't just giving Harry the slips relating to the Marauders. Harry notes that he occasionally reads his father's name, not that he reads it on every single card. He also notes that it's often linked with Sirius, and less often with Lupin or Pettigrew. But it implies that James and Sirius often worked as a team, and sometimes brought in Lupin and Pettigrew. Or perhaps, Lupin and Pettrigrew were always involved, but less likely to require punishment. Second: Harry see NO detention cards with Snape's name on them. It's not stated directly, but given the seething hatred Harry feels while he's doing this task, I can't imagine he wouldn't notice if he found a slip showing that Snape was up to something bad. So, either Snape went in before the detention and removed all the cards with his name on them, or he was wily enough to slither out of trouble every single time he did something wrong at Hogwarts, or, for the period of time that Harry goes over, he didn't do anything worthy of punishment. Mike: > I read your FF that you linked, Motavilla - very nicely done and > plausible to a degree. However, I do not buy Sev's innocence in the > Prank (I realize you wrote it before DH, but that was my opinion > before DH also). I find him the most culpable in the whole affair. > Nobody lured him there, he seems to have been proposing the Lupin > werewolf scenario for some time to at least Lily, he knew it was the > full moon, he's seen Poppy taking Remus out there and evidently seen > the other three Marauders go in there too. Montavilla47: First off, thanks! I appreciate you taking the time to read it. I'm not sure what you mean by innocence, though. I didn't actually go into Snape's motive for going into the tunnel in that chapter (it was two chapters earlier), but I think I had him partly going into the tunnel in order to check his theory about Lupin (which he had broached earlier to Lily), partly to catch the Marauders doing something wrong, and partly because Sirius pissed him off. I pondered the idea of Sirius being more manipulative, setting up Snape to "overhear" the vital information about pushing a bump with a stick, but it just worked better with it being stupid and childish. Also, one of the things that I didn't expect, but ended up amusing me was how stupid Severus really was. I had him planning it out carefully to give himself plenty of time to explore what he thinks is probably a cave under the tree, then getting all interested in the house he finds and completely forgetting that there's a werewolf on the way. Still cracks me up. From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Thu Jan 31 21:42:01 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:42:01 -0000 Subject: Snape saving Lupin (was student!Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181175 > Alla wrote: > > > But as I said, even such a Snape hater as I am, I am forced to give > him a credit for saving Lupin at the end. And that is defying > Dumbledore, nothing less. I am confused Alla. Are you talking about the time in DH that Lupin was with George (Pretending to be Harry ) on the broomstick and George got hurt by the spell from Snape. Was he actually trying to save Lupin here or was he trying to save Harry (George !). Jayne From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jan 31 22:29:28 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:29:28 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181176 Leah: > The fact that they don't give Harry those sort of explanations > suggest that they're not true, and to their credit, Sirius and Lupin > are being honest with Harry. Harry actually says '"he just attacked > Snape for no good reason..."' and neither Sirius or Lupin give a > reason like I've suggested above. What we get from Lupin is the > comments I quoted in my earlier post, about never telling James and > Sirius to lay off Snape, and never telling them they were 'out of > order' and Sirius' comment that Lupin sometimes made them ashamed of > their treatment of Snape. Magpie: I'm going to go with Leah on this one. The way the situation comes across to me is this--Snape doesn't come across as some innocent picked on kid like Neville at all. There's no indication that we're talking about Marauders bullying Snape into crying fits and that's it. However, we also have a clear pattern of him being outnumbered, and I think that's actually an intentional theme. Not that he never had any allies, but that the Marauders, particularly James and Sirius were *friends* and from the get-go the two of them would go after Severus-- who gave as good as he got, surely, but did not have a Sirius, nor a Remus or a Peter. He did eventually go around with a gang--that's canon too. But it seems to me the idea is still that Snape never really had friends like the Marauders. He had people he "went around with" not people who were loyal to him the way most of the Marauders were to each other. The closest he actually seems to come to somebody who really cared about him was Lucius, actually. As per DH and HBP, the one saving grace of the Malfoys (which I doubt is true of Mulciber or Avery) is that they are capable of truly caring about other people--even if it's mostly each other. Lucius is really the only person in canon that I would say is linked to Snape as something like a same-age friend-- except for Lily, of course. But we've got lots of references to the Marauders being friends and targetting Snape--hell, I always thought that was the way it worked starting in PoA when the MWPP gang up on Snape in map form. As you've mentioned, the Marauders themselves talk about Sirius and James going after Snape together, Lupin regrets not stopping the two of them. We see it in SWM. Snape furiously refers to them going after him 4 on 1 (it probably seemed that way to Snape even when Sirius and James were the ones doing the hexing). He seems to have some true actual pain about the unfairness of that part. The one time we see somebody on Snape's side it's Lily. So yeah, I think loneliness is a big part of Snape's character and don't really see any evidence of true gang fights between his friends and James friends. I wouldn't be surprised if there were times when the two groups fought, but it still seems like we're often talking about MWPP vs. Snape and Snape seeing himself as on his own. SWM seems far more like business as usual, and the people standing around even make it look to Harry as if Snape isn't very popular, not that they're afraid of him in that big of a crowd. (I could easily imagine they're afraid of him individually.) He seems like he's supposed to be both vicious and lonely, and the lonlier he gets (especially after Lily drops him) the more vicious he gets, hanging around with an evil bunch of boys without seeming to find actual friends in them. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 22:29:37 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:29:37 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181177 Mike: > But in one of the memories, Lily is talking about Sev's friends that he's hanging around with during his fifth year. I think canon tells us that Sev does still have friends around. > Two possibilities - Sev was shown absentmindedly wandering outside with his nose in his DADA test. Who says his housemates even went outside? Or maybe the rest of the Slytherins headed to their favorite spot down by the Forbidden Forest, out of sight and out of earshot of the beech tree where the attack happened. Carol responds: Right. I thought first of Hermione, who likes to study her exam questions and mentally go over her answers--not a group activity even though she has friends--and of Theo Nott, a loner who is nevertheless not at odds with the other boys in his year and sometimes hangs out with Draco if he has a reason (both their fathers have been arrested, for example, or both have been shunned as members of the Slug Club because of their fathers). So, just because he's alone on this occacion doesn't mean that he doesn't have Slytherin friends even when he's in fifth year, as the snipped canon illustrates. > Mike: > The other possibility - Avery, Mulciber, and most of *Sev's* crowd were in a different year. I don't think that crowd was very big in the first place. And Sev already showed the propensity to impress and become a "gang member" with an older crowd. I had the impression that Avery and Mulciber were older than fifth year, and were using more advanced spells. Therefore, I didn't think Snape had any mates around at this time. Carol: I think you're right. Certainly, Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix and Rodolphus were long gone. Probably Rabastan was as well, and I get the impression that Macnair is about the same age as Lucius Malfoy. Wilkes and Rosier may be older, too; Lily doesn't mention them. At any rate, I've always thought that Lucius was a kind of mentor to Severus for his first two years, and any remaining members of the Lucius/Bellatrix gang continued to include the younger Severus as one of them because he was so precocious--knowing all those hexes as a first-year and inventing all those spells and clever porions improvements when he was slightly older. I suspect that they regarded him first as a prodigy and later as a genius. The students in the other Houses, OTOH, seem to have associated him with the Dark Arts. Odd, since Langlock and the Toe-nail hex and even Levicorpus (complete with its own countercurse) are no worse than any other school-boy hexes, and Muffliato (a charm, not a hex) is so useful that Hermione is still using it in DH as one of their protections. We don't know what Regulus (who wasn't present in SWM because he was a year or two younger) thought of Severus, but I suspect that they were on reasonably friendly terms. But I think that Severus became more and more of a loner as his older friends left Hogwarts. If Avery and Mulciber were older, he might have been virtually alone (except for Regulus) by his sixth and seventh years--all the more reason to want to join the DEs and have friends again. Sigh. Mike: > Then, we've been shown that Sev made friends with older Slyths. All the clues point to Lucius taking Sev under his wing from day one and that Snape aligned himself with the Malfoys enough for the "Lapdog" comment to be legitimate, if outdated at the time of its utterance. This would also put him at an advantage over the Marauders in their early years. > In Sev's later years, many of his friends having graduated, he was more likely to be at a disadvantage numerically. And, yes, the Marauders have become bullies, I am forced to admit that with at least regards to Sev. Carol: Right. I would add Bertram Aubrey and James's hexing people who annoyed him in the hallway to this list. Also, Sirius Black's remark to Wormtail in PoA that he always sought the protection of the biggest bully on the playground is pretty much an admission of what he and James were (as well as what Peter was). Mike: > But I find the clues of Sev's early years with the upper hand giving the Marauders motivation for *getting back* at the "little oddball" that bested them when they were younger. Carol: Yeah. I'll bet they regretted tripping him on the train and inventing the epithet "Snivellus" at first! Mike: > BTW, I'll bet it was finally 4:1 by their seventh year, but it seems Snape "never lost an oppurtunity to curse James" even then. Carol: Right, assuming that "four on one" isn't an exaggeration. Snape is furious when he says it and has just falsely been accused of cowardice by a boy who looks just like James, so his memories of James are at their most subjective here. (Also, I'm pretty sure that the adult Snape still thinks that all four Marauders, including Peter, were in on the so-called Prank.) Mike: > Some point to the detention file of Sirius and James as proof of their bulllying. Snape picked the Sirius and James files and we see none of the others from that era. Carol: Did he? I think he picked the files for a particular year, perhaps the fifth, when James's and Sirius's bullying were at their worst, or when they got the greatest number of detentions. But, surely, the detentions can't all have been earned by MWPP or PP (meaning Prongs and Padfoot, not Peter Pettigrew), or the "regular jolt in the stomach" that Harry feels when he pulls out a card with their names on it would quickly stop happening. (The rest of the time, Harry perceives the task as "useless, boring work"--he doesn't care about anyone else's detentions, and evidently doesn't find any for his mother or Snape. Also, Snape starts him of with "boxes one thousand and twelve to one thousand and fifty-six" (forty-four *boxes*, not forty-four cards). Surely, not even the Marauders could have earned forty-four boxes worth of detentions all by themselves. And these are only the detentions assigned by Filch (HBP Am. ed. 532). Harry works for three and a half hours (from ten a.m. till half past one) and is assigned to Saturday detentions of about the same length for the rest of the term. Whether the boxes are for a single year or for the seven years that MWPP and Severus spent at Hogwarts, they certainly include many detentions for students other than the Marauders. Snape, however, confidently and correctly anticipates that Harry will find many of his father's detentions among them. Mike: I > do not buy Sev's innocence in the Prank I find him the most culpable in the whole affair. Nobody lured him there, he seems to have been proposing the Lupin werewolf scenario for some time to at least Lily, he knew it was the full moon, he's seen Poppy taking Remus out there and evidently seen the other three Marauders go in there too. Carol responds: So making it possible for him to go into a tunnel and encounter a werewolf with no protection other than his wand and tempting him to do it isn't reckless endangerment? Suppose that I handed you a loaded gun with one bullet in it and dared you to play Russian roulette? Wouldn't I be at fault for endangering you if you were stupid enough to take the bait? Or would your death, which would not have happened had I not dared you and tempted you to prove that you were immortal, be all your own fault? Severus *suspects* that Remus is a werewolf, but he doesn't *know* it. what he does know is that the Marauders can get into the tunnel to see him and come out again alive. Maybe he thinks that the werewolf, as dangerous as any tiger or other wild animal in a zoo, will be caged. What Sirius doesn't tell him is that he and his friends are in no danger because they're Animagi. Instead, he says, in essence, "Here's how you get in. Go and see what's there." He *knows* that Severus will not only be terrified but wholly unprotected. (I don't think you can Stun a transformed werewolf.) Both DD and Snape himself state that James saved Snape's life. That being the case, Sirius *endangered* it, and Severus would have either died or been bitten had James not rescued him). (How he did so without revealing himself as an Animagus I can't guess.) > Mike: > As I said before, I think he took the "if they can do it, I can do it" attitude. That's the ONLY way I could fathom Sev listening to Sirius. Sev confronting Sirius with "I know where you go on full moon nights" and Sirius in due course responding with "Get a branch, push the knot, if you're so tough" type of challenge. Of course Sirius leaves out the Animagi angle, which James evidently found a little unfair. Carol: I agree with you that it's one teenage boy daring another to show he's not afraid and tempting him with bait he can't refuse. But *Sirius knows what's in there*--a fully grown werewolf who is not restrained in any way--and *he knows how to encounter the werewolf safely*, which Severus doesn't. So it's even worse than handing someone a gun with one bullet and daring him to shoot himself. Russian roulette has only one in six chances of being fatal, and the kid who takes the dare knows what he's facing and what the odds are. An encounter with a werewolf, if you're not an Animagus, will either kill you or transform you into a werewolf yourself. So, stupid as Severus was to take the bait, he expected to *see* a werewolf and prove his theory. He did not expect to be in mortal peril. As you say, if the Marauders could do it, he could do it. Or so he thought. Sirius was worse than thoughtless or reckless. If it weren't for James, he'd have blood on his hands--not to mention the consequences to Remus Lupin had he bitten Severus (expulsion and imprisonment and lifelong psychological problems if not having his soul sucked by a Dementor). And DD and Madam Pomfrey might well have been fired for endangering the students. Carol, agreeing with Mike for the first half of this post but not about to let Sirius off the hook for this piece of adolescent stupidity From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 22:43:57 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:43:57 -0000 Subject: student!Snape keeping Lupin's secret (was Re: Sirius as a dog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181178 Carol responds: So making it possible for him to go into a tunnel and encounter a werewolf with no protection other than his wand and tempting him to do it isn't reckless endangerment? Suppose that I handed you a loaded gun with one bullet in it and dared you to play Russian roulette? Wouldn't I be at fault for endangering you if you were stupid enough to take the bait? Or would your death, which would not have happened had I not dared you and tempted you to prove that you were immortal, be all your own fault? Alla: We do not know that he made it possible for Snape to go, we do not know that he tempted Snape to go, we only know that he told Snape how to go. So, I would say that if you left the loaded gun on the table and told me how to play Russian roulette, you would not be at fault at all, for your action anyways. At least I hope not. I would be the one who picked the gun and decided to play after all. I just do not see that what Sirius did equals giving the gun to you in your hands even. Carol: I agree with you that it's one teenage boy daring another to show he's not afraid and tempting him with bait he can't refuse. But *Sirius knows what's in there*--a fully grown werewolf who is not restrained in any way--and *he knows how to encounter the werewolf safely*, which Severus doesn't Alla: Suspects or knows for sure, all the matters of degree is it not? And I think he pretty much figured it out ? how could one think that there is a maybe werewolf in there? Carol: So, stupid as Severus was to take the bait, he expected to *see* a werewolf and prove his theory. He did not expect to be in mortal peril. As you say, if the Marauders could do it, he could do it. Or so he thought. Alla: He knows or suspects that there is a werewolf there and he does not expect to be in mortal peril? He is stupid all right then. I would not exclude the possibility that he expected to be in mortal peril and went anyways. There is that wise crack of Dumbledore that we sort too soon after all. Probably Snape wanted to show his Gryffindor courage. Carol, agreeing with Mike for the first half of this post but not about to let Sirius off the hook for this piece of adolescent stupidity Alla: I am not either but mostly for Remus' part. If Snape ignored what Sirius said, nothing would have happened, I think. I mean, I am sure that Sirius wanted to scare Snape oh ever so badly, but I do not see that he could even be sure that Snape will go there. But sure he was reckless idiot in saying it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 23:04:10 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:04:10 -0000 Subject: CoS chapters 6-10, post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181179 Alla wrote: > > "If we hadn't married Muggles we'd've died out" - p.116 > > Alla: > > Not that I really wish to get into that famous introduction about Mudbloods, etc, but did he not meant to say muggle- borns here? Carol: I think you're right. It's unclear from this snippet whether "we" refers to Wizards and Witches in general, in which case, Ron does mean Muggles, or to "Pure-bloods," in which case he means "Muggle-borns." Does the larger context help? > Alla: > "Hagrid wasn't supposed to use magic. He had been expelled from > Hogwarts in his third year, but Harry never found out why - any > mention of the matter and Hagrid would clear his throat loudly and > become mysteriously deaf until the subject was changed." - p.118 > Alla: > > Wait a second. It seems to me that Hagrid can keep secrets very well > when he chooses to here. Um, don't you think that his talkativeness > in PS/SS may have been deliberate then? Carol: Maybe the fact that he's concealing information about himself that he doesn't want Harry and his friends to know makes it easier for him to keep a secret. When he's blundering on about Madam Maxime, OTOH, he doesn't seem to realize that he's not saying anything that HRH aren't already supposed to know. I think he isn't secretive by nature--unlike snape, he'd be a very bad liar because he'd forget that he had lied. But in this case, he's keeping his own secret, not one that dumbledore was foolish enough to entrust him with. (If DD *did* want Harry and his friends to try to protect the Stone, he would have expected Hagrid to let the secret slip.) Alla: > "But, Albus... surely... who?" > "The question is not who," said Dumbledore, his eyes on Collin. "The > question is, how..." - p.181 > > Alla: > > This quote was underlined in my copy of CoS from past reading, that means that I may have asked this question already, but I am still unsure of answer. > > So Dumbledore KNEW who opened the chamber? Oy. Carol: I don't think that he knew it was Ginny or that he knew about Diary!Tom. I've always read this passage to mean that he's referring to Voldemort. He know that Tom Riddle opened the Chamber fifty years earlier. The question is not who (Voldemort again) but how he can be opening it when he's still vapor (and not possessing a staff member or student, as far as DD knows). I don't think he could possibly have known that the unwitting culprit was Ginny, or he'd have questioned her and found out about the diary. Granted, Diary!Tom isn't exactly Voldemort, only a kind of not-quite human alter identity, but had he encountered the disembodied older self, they would undoubtedly have merged. Carol, wondering whether that newly embodied version of LV would have looked like a sixteen-year-old boy and how the DEs would have reacted to taking orders from a kid From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 23:36:19 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:36:19 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapters 2-5 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181180 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > interestingly, I wonder if the way it opened in "the medium > which dare not speak its name" was what JKR visualised. In > "The Philosopher's Stone" chapter 5, Hagrid counted bricks > up and along before tapping - which is what he did in the > DVD - and this outcome seems to be the logical way of doing > it. No question, the DH description is better - it's more logical and easier to visualize (sorry for the "z", Geoff :-)). I liked how it was shown in the movie. As for JKR's intentions, I have no idea, but I would really liked it if the descriptions matched - it would have been part of this "going back and completing the circle" theme then. It's not a big deal, just an observation :-). It's like the description of "The Hog's Head" - in OotP the stone floor is covered with a thick layer of dirt, but in DH it is covered with sawdust. I know you'll say that Aberforth just changed his habits a little bit (and sawdust *is* an improvement, to take into consideration the goats :-)), but again, to me it would be better if the descriptions matched - Harry comes back and recognizes (sorry again :-)) the place. Again, it's not a big deal - just something that I noticed a few times in DH. zanooda From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 31 23:55:51 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:55:51 -0000 Subject: PS/SS - chapters 2-5 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 181181 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > wrote: > > > interestingly, I wonder if the way it opened in "the medium > > which dare not speak its name" was what JKR visualised. In > > "The Philosopher's Stone" chapter 5, Hagrid counted bricks > > up and along before tapping - which is what he did in the > > DVD - and this outcome seems to be the logical way of doing > > it. > > > No question, the DH description is better - it's more logical and > easier to visualize (sorry for the "z", Geoff :-)). I liked how it was > shown in the movie. As for JKR's intentions, I have no idea, but I > would really liked it if the descriptions matched - it would have been > part of this "going back and completing the circle" theme then. It's > not a big deal, just an observation :-). > > It's like the description of "The Hog's Head" - in OotP the stone > floor is covered with a thick layer of dirt, but in DH it is covered > with sawdust. I know you'll say that Aberforth just changed his habits > a little bit (and sawdust *is* an improvement, to take into > consideration the goats :-)), but again, to me it would be better if > the descriptions matched - Harry comes back and recognizes (sorry > again :-)) the place. Again, it's not a big deal - just something that > I noticed a few times in DH. Geoff: It takes more than sweeping the floor and putting down sawdust to make a room unrecognisable.... I imagine that the bar and the furniture were much the same and the layout and positioning of doors etc. would make the room familiar to Harry. There is no really detailed description in either OOTP or DH to indicate any changes other than that Aberforth has had a miniscule spring cleaning session.