Slytherins come back and some other staff

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 180260

Lealess:
<SNIP>
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.

<SNIP>

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:
<SNIP>
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. <SNIP>

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)?
<SNIP>

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. <SNIP>

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. <SNIP>

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.