HouseElves/Pettigrew/Shunpike/Bertha/Slytherin/Rewrites/Economic/Carol, Carol

[a_svirn]

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.