From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  1 05:54:05 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 05:54:05 -0000
Subject: Identity of "that awful boy"
In-Reply-To: <g1s4qr+100uv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g1tdht+4i11@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183095

---  "Brenwen" <brenwen at ...> wrote:
>
> I was re-listening to OOP last night, and in Chapter 2, as 
> the Dursleys question Harry about Dementors, Petunia replies
> to Vernon's query - "What are Dementors?" by saying, "They 
> guard the wizard prison, Azkeban." At this point Harry, 
> dumbfounded, asks Petunia, "how do you know that?" and she 
> replies, "we heard about it from that awful boy". ...
> 
> I always believed the "awful boy" was James Potter .... But
>  now, ..., I believe she meant Severus Snape. ...

bboyminn:

I think we are intended to be mislead into believing that it
was James. I think the next line in that scene is Harry asking
Petunia something to the effect, 'if you mean my parents, why 
don't you use their names'. Again, because Harry is the Point
of View character, we are made to think the reference Petunia
made was to Lily and James. But Petunia never confirms or
denies specifically who she is talking about.

Later in book 7, in the Pensieve scenes that Harry views,
we see Petunia hiding while Snape explains about the
Dementors. That confirms to us who Petunia was really talking
about way back when. 

So, we are made by Harry interpretation to think it was James,
but we do find out later that it was most likely Snape.

Steve/bboyminn




From petaannfox at yahoo.com.au  Sun Jun  1 06:37:48 2008
From: petaannfox at yahoo.com.au (Peta-Ann Fox)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 23:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: timetable problem
Message-ID: <115056.1850.qm@web35705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183096

> Potioncat:
> You're right. There's no way one teacher could teach enough
> classes for all the students at Hogwarts, even if we only
> imagine the 40 or so per year that we know about. (Long
> running debate on the actual number of students at Hogwarts

> Jerri:
> Yes, the "maths" of Hogwarts schedules can't work out.
> ... there is the fact that the train always leaves to
> go to Hogwarts on September 1, and the first day of
> classes is the next day seems to be always Monday!
> Prof. Umbridge in OoP. HOW could she have taught
> all those DADA classes inspected all of Hagrid's
> classes and all of the divination classes, plus
> other inspections of other teachers/classes?
> ... but I still feel that her schedule, as DADA
> teacher and Grand Inquisitor was more full than
> possible, even before she added being acting
> headmistress to the load.


Hi!

I don't think that all classes are held during a "regular
timetable" that we experience. Astronomy for instance would
be held at night - as they had their OWL examination at night
(when we read Prof Umbridge attempted to get rid of Hagrid
in the OoP). For the students to have learnt the practical -
it would've been hard to do so during the day.

Also, the story is based over just under a year so it wouldn't
all happen in the one week - I think JK would've use her (as
Prof Umbridges) spare periods to observe other profs. So for
instance, she might of had two spare peridods a week where
she could've observed other prof.'s. It also doesn't state
that she was there for the entire lesson - she observed,
asked questions then left - no indication that she was there
for the whole lesson.

With Prof Umbridge's role as Grand Inquisitor and being a
teacher that lived on site, I think she did a lot of work
in her free time. As we learn from her character she loves
her job

Peta



From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jun  1 11:01:22 2008
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:01:22 -0000
Subject: Hmmm.  What's your favorite *now*?
In-Reply-To: <01d401c8c209$4eba8540$4001a8c0@Pensieve>
Message-ID: <g1tvi2+t5l7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183097

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" <sherriola at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > Potioncat:
> > How difficult was it to continue reading the series after Sirius 
died?  
> > Given that I'm still here, I suppose I would have continued 
reading if 
> > Snape had died earlier. But I was quite upset at his death, even 
> > expecting it. I thought Sirius's was completely unexpected.
> >
> 
> 
> Sherry:
> 
> It was actually difficult for me to continue with the series after 
Sirius
> died.  But, for me, it had always been mostly about Harry, so 
because I
> wanted to know what happened to him, and to see him defeat 
Voldemort at
> last, I stuck with the series and enjoyed the last two books.  But 
some of
> the luster and absolute fun of the series died for me when Sirius 
died.
> Even that goes back to Harry, because I wanted Harry to have his 
godfather,
> someone who was his family, his own parental figure.  And, part of 
it was
> just because I liked Sirius, even with his flaws.

Marianne:

That's exactly how I felt. Of course I had to read the final two 
books to see how the series ended. To some extent, even though there 
were parts of each book that I truly enjoyed, I felt like this was 
more of an assignment that I had to complete than something I really 
wanted to do, if that makes any sense.  I comforted myself with the 
thought that at least Remus was still alive, although I didn't have 
high hopes for him surviving, and then had the major disappointment 
of his character turning into a complete mound of misery.  

Marianne




From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jun  1 11:10:23 2008
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:10:23 -0000
Subject: Mourning Snape's life
In-Reply-To: <g1qbp7+vcld@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g1u02v+91tl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183098

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "seventeensilversickles" 
<formerlysane at ...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
> 
> When Snape died, I was quite upset because I'd become very fond of 
him 
> (despite his basic unpleasantness).  But the emptiness of Snape's 
life 
> was even more disturbing to me than his death.  He was such a 
great 
> character, so many layers and facets to the man.  
> 
> I definitely think his death was a necessary action in order to 
achieve 
> the proper conclusion of the series, and we all know the man was 
> incapable of finding any kind of happiness in his lifetime (for 
lots of 
> reasons), but I just never expected I'd be this sad!  Poor old 
Severus, 
> I really miss him.   
> 

You have my sympathies, Seventeen Silver Sickles. I never liked 
Snape, but I understand how others found him fascinating, and I 
completely understand the feeling of mourning for a character, as I 
had that experience after OoP.  One of the biggest surprises for me 
at the end of DH was that I ended up feeling an unexpected level of 
pity for Snape.  I didn't like him anymore than I had, but getting a 
look at a man with so much going for him intellectually who is so 
emotionally crippled by his past I came away with a feeling of "What 
a waste!"  

Marianne




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Sun Jun  1 15:02:12 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 08:02:12 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Identity of "that awful boy"
In-Reply-To: <g1tdht+4i11@eGroups.com>
References: <g1s4qr+100uv@eGroups.com> <g1tdht+4i11@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806010802j1bb2211dp7008490f25397a7c@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183099

bboyminn:
I think we are intended to be mislead into believing that it
was James. I think the next line in that scene is Harry asking
Petunia something to the effect, 'if you mean my parents, why
don't you use their names'

Lynda:

Is it that simple, though, or more complex. I ask only because before the
end of the book, I had figured out, through the context that the "awful boy"
was not James Potter and was therefore most likely Sev. Snape.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jun  1 16:57:47 2008
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 1 Jun 2008 16:57:47 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/1/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1212339467.9.21854.m47@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183100

Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday June 1, 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: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20080601/fe197cce/attachment.html>

From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  1 22:35:49 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 22:35:49 -0000
Subject: Giants and Voldemort (WAS:  What's your favorite *now*?)
In-Reply-To: <g1evan+4bbg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g1v885+bq6k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183101

> Pippin:
> It wasn't until my latest reading of DH that I realized why these
> two bits of the story had to be there. This time I  paid close
> attention to Voldemort in DH. Voldemort Mark II is  a very
> different person from Voldemort Mark I, thanks to Lily's blood,
> but we  wouldn't know that without the pensieve scenes. 
> 
> <snip>
>  hardly more capable of establishing a viable empire than the
> new Gurg of the Giants. And that might make Voldemort seem less
> dangerous.
> 
> But the giants show us otherwise. Voldie couldn't have won. But he
> could very easily have destroyed the WW in the process of losing.

Mike:
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this one.

I follow your reasoning on Voldemort Mark II vs Mark I, and how 
Lily's blood could be the mitigating factor in his newfound "human-
ness". Was JKR intentionally trying to set him up as capable, if 
extremely unlikely, of finding "remorse" - I can't say. I did find 
Voldemort less scary than I found him in GoF, but I don't know that I 
was supposed to. Besides, GoF!Voldemort had just received Lily-blood. 
But I do agree with you, he seemed more like a common thug in DH than 
an all-powerful wizard.

It's your second part (below the <snip>) where I'm not following. Why 
did we have to be put through 'Hagrid's Tale' in OotP? Were we 
supposed to see the parallel between the new Gurg and Voldemort's 
second coming? Or was the giant's story a cautionary tale 
forshadowing Voldemort's entire story and what would happen to him?

Help me out here, Pippin. ;-)

Mike, who probably still won't like the story of the giants even if 
he does get to understand what Pippin is saying




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  1 23:15:17 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:15:17 -0000
Subject: Hmmm.  What's your favorite *now*?
In-Reply-To: <01d401c8c209$4eba8540$4001a8c0@Pensieve>
Message-ID: <g1vai5+gv0u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183102


> > Potioncat:
> > How difficult was it to continue reading the series after
> > Sirius died?  -<snip>-  I thought Sirius's was completely 
> > unexpected.
> 
> 
> Sherry:
> 
> It was actually difficult for me to continue with the series after 
> Sirius died.  But, for me, it had always been mostly about Harry,
> so because I wanted to know what happened to him, and to see him
> defeat Voldemort at last, I stuck with the series and enjoyed the
> last two books.

Mike:
I was like Sherry, it was Harry's story and in fact JKR's 
storytelling that kept me riveted. I was a late comer to Geoff's 
IWHTL club though mostly because I always expected Harry to live and 
never thought that JKR would kill him off. I knew Harry was going to 
defeat Voldemort, so it wasn't the destination but the trip that 
excited and incited me.


> Sherry:
> But some of the luster and absolute fun of the series died for
> me when Sirius died. Even that goes back to Harry, because I
> wanted Harry to have his godfather, someone who was his family,
> his own parental figure.  And, part of it was just because
> I liked Sirius, even with his flaws.

Mike:
Good point, Sherry. Lot's of the fun went out of the series when 
Sirius got stuck in 12 GP and when he dies. 

I forgot to mention one of my other favorite scenes in the series: 
the cave scene in GoF. Sirius was being a friend, a father figure, a 
loyal ally, and a rascal all at once. I loved how he dissected Crouch 
Sr., how he went where nobody else seemed willing to go when Ron 
challenged him with "Try us!". I was glad for his VWI explanations, 
his exposition on the Unforgivables and Crouch, and his concern for 
how "one treats his inferiors". And I absolutely loved the way he 
elicited knowing smiles from Ron and Harry with his little dig on 
Snape.


> > Potioncat <snipped out>:
> > Given that I'm still here, I suppose I would have continued 
> > reading if Snape had died earlier. But I was quite upset at his 
> > death, even expecting it. 

Mike:
I would have adored JKR if she had killed off Snape in OotP, instead 
of Sirius. ;-) Couldn't have happened, but one can dream, can't one?





From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Jun  2 00:26:49 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:26:49 -0000
Subject: Peverells/the Cloak/the Wand/the Horn/Hogwarts Class Schedules/Umbridge
Message-ID: <g1veo9+egn7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183103

Goddlefrood summarized Chapter 21 in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183022>:

<< the Peverell brothers are integral to the legend of the Hallows,
naming them as Antioch, Cadmus and Ignotus. >>

Before the Deathly Hallows symbol was on Ignotus's gravestone or
Xenophilius's necklace, it was on the spine of one of the Bloomsbury
editions of DH, cover art that was released before the book. The list
had much discussion of what it might mean. The Christian Trinity,
Alcoholics Anonymous and Mary Magdalene were all suggested, but no one
suggested that the triangle was a cloak, the circle a stone (now set
in a ring), and the line a wand. 

On my second reading, I noticed a thing about their initials: A looks
like a triangle, C looks like a circle, and I looks like a line.
However, if the names are meaningful, they don't go with the right
artifacts: Ignotus is 'unknown' which goes with hiding under the cloak
and Cadmus was the guy who sowed the dragon's teeth, which immediately
grew into fully armed warriors who killed each other therefore a good
namesake for 'a combative sort of man' who got the wand. I don't
recall any suggestions as to why Herself named them Peverell.

She could have named them Invictus or fiery Ignis for the wand,
Orpheus for the stone, and ... A is harder. Isn't 'Aidoneus' a title
of Hades meaning 'unseen'?

<< 4. What reaction did you have to the speculation relative to
Harry's Cloak being the cloak from the story and did you find yourself
agreeing with or dismissing Ron's thoughts about Harry's cloak being
extraordinary? >>

As others have already posted, I think Herself cheated, having never
before given any clue that Harry's invisibility cloak was exceptional.
Yes, at first Harry and Ron had never seen any other so they had no
comparison, but the Order of the Phoenix had two cloaks and, to play
fair, she should have used them to work in some reference to 'the
spell is starting to wear off; it was only guaranteed for 15 years' or
'they can see a bit of you through the holes where the demiguise fur
is wearing out'. 

Or the Trio could learn about it from being assigning to write a
homework essay about Invisibility Cloaks.

It would have been in character for Hermione to have read up on
Invisibility Cloaks when she learned that Harry had one, and bored him
and Ron with a lot of information about how unusual his is, except
that clue would have been in the first book and readers would have had
long enough to figure out what was going on.

<< 6. Xenophilius uses the word 'capture' when describing how
ownership of the wand could be transferred - would that then mean that
the wand does not necessarily have to be defeated in order to transfer
its allegiance? >>

As others have already posted, Grindelwald captured the Wand from
Gregorovitch without killing him. I kept wondering why the merry-faced
thief had perched in the window waiting for Gregorovitch to get a good
look at him instead of leaving right away, but eventually accumulated
enough clues to understand that he wasn't confident that just stealing
the Wand counted as 'capturing' it, but that Stunning the previous
owner was adequate. 

He may have had practical reasons for using Stupefy instead of Adavra
Kedavra, such as there being a Forbidden Curse alarm in the area, or
understanding that his future empire would need a good wandmaker, but
I prefer to think that Grindelwald didn't kill Gregorovitch because
Grindelwald wasn't a murderer when he started.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183032>:

<< I still want to know who sold Xeno that horn, claiming that it
belonged to a Crumple-Horned Snorkack. >>

There was such a long history of mysterious strangers who popped up
just to give Hagrid "interesting creatures" who turned out to be Lord
Voldemort or his agents, that automatically my thought was 'why would
the bad guys want to plant an erumpent horn in Lovegood's house?' I
can't think of any reason why bad guys or good guys or anyone but the
author would want to hang it on that wall. 

But your comment made me think that Xenophilius might have a lot more
money than he seems, and be willing to spend it on a Snorkak's crumped
horn, and various con men might know that. He may have bought other
fake Snorkak horns in the past. I'd think Erumpent horn would sell for
a good price as itself, so why sell it as a fake something else, but
maybe this one was stolen and the thief is eager to get rid of it...

Random832 wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183069>:

<< I was trying to work out a consistent class schedule for a fanfic
I'm working on, and ran into a problem. >>

I believe that even if there are 280 rather than 1000 students at
Hogwarts Castle, it is impossible to work out consistent class
schedules. Just make up something that fits your fanfic -- that's what
Herself did. And you can use the excuse that the schedules aren't the
same every year. For my fanfic, I made up one where Snape taught two
long classes a day, Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws in the morning and
Gryffindors and Slytherins in the afternoon, first years on Monday,
second years on Tuesday, third years on Wednesday, fourth years on
Thursday, and fifth years on Friday. Then mixed classes for NEWT level
students, sixth years on Saturday morning and seventh years on
Saturday afternoons. It doesn't give him any time to read and grade
those essays he's always assigning, and he and the Advanced Potions
students could attend Quidditch matches only if he replaces class on
match days with an evening class or a homework assignment. 

Jerri wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183076>:

<< I was certain that the only way Umbridge could have worked the
schedule that she did was with the aid of a time turner. However,
there is no cannon to that effect, I don't know if JKR intended it
that way or if it is just one of her "maths" problems. >>

I feel sure that JKR didn't intend that Umbridge was using a time
turner, but it occurs to me that maybe, unbeknownst to the author,
most of the teachers are using time turners repeatedly every day, so
they can teach three or four classes at once. And grade many essays at
the same time. 

Jerri wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183076>:

<< there is the fact that the train always leaves to go to Hogwarts on
September 1, and the first day of classes is the next day, and seems
to be always Monday! >>

Maybe the wizarding calendar is set up so that every month begins on a
Sunday, so the second of each month is a Monday. Either the months are
only 28 days long or every month but non-leap February ends with a
partial week, where Sunday comes again after, like, Tuesday. If there
are 28-day, there would be 13 of them plus one day left over between
years. The thirteenth month could be while the kids are home on summer
holiday, so Harry doesn't know about it. And the 28-day month year
would have to begin on September 1st, so that their September 1st (a
Sunday) is on the same day as the Muggle September 1st.

Hey! They could have eight-day weeks, so Snape could teach classes 6
days a week (above) without teaching on Saturday or Sunday. Then they
could have eleven 32-day months with one 10-day month.

Altho' they probably would prefer to have 17 months of 29 days each,
to be as inconveniently prime as possible, like their money.

Carol suspects in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183089>:

<< that Umbridge was yet another Half-blood Slytherin with a Witch
mother and Muggle father and that her mother's maiden name was 
Selwyn >>

I agree with Debbie that Umbridge was probably just lying about being
related to the Selwyns (and with Potioncat about the type of her
interest in Fudge, altho' she lost interest in Fudge when he lost
power). I think it's insulting to Muggles to suggest that she's
related to us. 

The constant description of her appearance as 'toad-like' suggests to
me that she has genes from one of the less pretty magical non-humans
-- I suppose she'd have fangs instead of a long sticky tongue if she
were all or half Hag. (All Hags are female, so maybe the male of the
species just has another name. Usually I suggest 'ogre' but that word
doesn't seem to appear in the Potterverse, so maybe Trolls.) Maybe
she's part mer-folk, as they and toads are both amphibious. 





From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Mon Jun  2 02:31:47 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase)
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 21:31:47 -0500
Subject: timetable problem
References: <1212328116.12621.9028.m46@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <000601c8c458$e3a29bb0$77ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1>

No: HPFGUIDX 183104

> Also, the story is based over just under a year so it wouldn't
> all happen in the one week - I think JK would've use her (as
> Prof Umbridges) spare periods to observe other profs. So for
> instance, she might of had two spare periods a week where
> she could've observed other prof.'s. It also doesn't state
> that she was there for the entire lesson - she observed,
> asked questions then left - no indication that she was there
> for the whole lesson.
> Peta

Here are some passages from OoP that seem to me to indicate that she 
was in Care of Magical Creatures and Divination for entire class 
periods.  It comes from the "Beetle at Bay" chapter (page 487, UK 
edition):

"Every single Divination and Care of Magical Creatures lesson was now 
conducted in the presence of Umbridge and her clipboard.  She lurked 
by the fire in the heavily perfumed tower room, interrupting Professor 
Trelawney's increasingly hysterical talks with difficult questions 
about ornithomancy and heptomoloty, insisting that she predict 
students' answers before they gave them and . . . [SKIP to a sample 
CMC lesson]

. . . He was oddly distracted and jumpy during lessons, losing the 
thread of what he was saying to the class, answering questions 
wrongly, an all the time glancing anxiously at Umbridge."

Now, it says "every single Divination and Care of Magical Creatures 
lesson".  Does that mean every one that Harry attended?  Or every 
class?  We don't know.  We only "see" the classes when Harry is a 
student in them, because the books are from Harry's POV.  However, I 
tend to believe that "every single . . . lesson" means every one, for 
all the various students, year groups, etc.

We know that she inspected several classes when Harry was present, but 
as I recall she did Flitwick when the twins were in class, and Harry 
and readers learned about it from her.  I can't see her just 
inspecting classes when Harry happened to be in the class.

There are other places in the book that caused me to feel that she had 
more on her schedule that would fit.  But this was the straw that got 
me.

Jerri 





From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  2 03:05:43 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 03:05:43 -0000
Subject: Was Harry Ordinary? (WAS: What's your favorite *now*?)
In-Reply-To: <g1qbe2+k62v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g1vo27+k253@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183105

> > Magpie wrote:
> > <snip>
> > Within this universe Harry is one of these most special people 
> > ever, hands down. He's never just been ordinary. <snip> 
>
> > That these things sometimes lead to bad things for Harry 
> > is not the same as them making Harry ordinary. 
>
> 
> Carol responds:
> Harry's *fate* and *destiny* are not ordinary, nor are the unique
> events that led to his becoming the Chosen One. But none of that
> has to do with Harry himself; it's more what happened to him. 

> Thanks to a series of events--<snip>--Harry is suddenly famous,
> having done nothing except survive through no effort of his own.
> 
> -<snip>-
>
> Fame for something you didn't even do, something that *happened*
> to you, is not the same thing as being extraordinary.

Mike:
I'm inclined more towards Magpie's viewpoint, both for the discussed 
scene and in general about Harry. 

I remember pausing in my reading of the second chapter of PS/SS and 
wondering how dreadful of an existence Harry must have lead those 10 
years at the Dursleys. To be treated as a mere servant, cook, 
cleaning boy, in short, as a Cinderfella, sounded so disheartening. 
To be living amongst modest wealth and to see your like-aged cousin 
treated like a spoiled prince, getting fat on all kinds of overly 
sumptuous foods while being fed only the bare minimum for survival,  
clothed in hand-me-downs and housed in a cupboard under the stairs, 
must have been almost harder than living in a family of poverty. 

And yet Harry remained a reasonably happy boy, albeit wishing against 
hope for a long lost relative to come and rescue him from his lot in 
life. That told me straight off that Harry was special, beyond 
knowing that he was a wizard. It showed a certain fortitude of 
character that informed on his humanity, apart from his as yet 
unknown wizardly prowesses.

But Harry proved it wasn't just what *happened* to him that made him 
extraordinary, he was himself a special wizard. It was his mother's 
love that saved him in the battle for the Philosopher's Stone, but as 
Dumbledore explained it was his own gift that allowed him to get the 
stone in the first place. Just because DD didn't explain this to us 
until HBP doesn't make Harry's actions in PS/SS any less 
extraordinary.

We can go on down the line through the books. Harry may have had help 
and luck in many of the things he faced, but in the end, it was he 
that did them and it took his fortitude of character where many if 
not most or all others would have failed. Hermione and Ron had to 
laugh at Harry trying to pass off his accomplishments as mere luck or 
help arriving in time. The other students in the Hogs Head were 
sufficiently awed (well, maybe not Zach) at Harry's accomplishments 
as well they should be. 

Killing a Basilisk is no small thing, even if Fawkes had already 
blinded it and brought Harry the weapon. And Harry was only 12. 
Producing a corporeal Patronus strong enough to drive away a hundred 
Dementors seems not an easy thing for many wizards. And Harry was 
only 13. Standing up to Voldemort at any age can't be considered 
trivial. Harry not only stood up to him, but his force of will was 
the greater and he actually defeated Voldemort in this test, allowing 
himself to escape. And he was only 14. Many factors played into 
Harry's victories, but it was ultimately the extaordinary kid with 
the unruly black hair that provided the final and deciding 
ingredient, something that I contest most would not find within 
themselves.

Dumbledore was effusive in his praise for Harry in HBP, but he was 
girding him for the inevitable fight against Voldemort. His 
overexuberance might be excused then. It was his long, drawn out 
explanation in OotP that was a more fair assessment. Wherein DD 
says; "I never dreamed that I would have such a person on my hands." 
and "Young you might be, but you had provewd that you were 
exceptional." <OotP p.839, US> Dumbledore was not talking about 
things that Harry gained from Voldemort, he was talking about Harry's 
inate abilities quite apart from what anyone or anything had added to 
him.

Harry's own sense of humility wouldn't allow him to take credit for 
his own accomplishments. But Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore, Madam Bones, 
and a host of others knew that Harry was special long before they 
knew he was *the Chosen One*. (OK, DD knew, but you get my meaning.)

Mike




From elfundeb at gmail.com  Mon Jun  2 03:07:26 2008
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:07:26 -0400
Subject: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Re:_[HPforGrownups]_Re:_Umbridge's_Selwyn_Connect?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ions_(WAS:_CHAPDISC:_DH_-_Ch._21_=96_The_Tale_of_the?=
In-Reply-To: <g1s9p3+nto8@eGroups.com>
References: <80f25c3a0805310314k613314a2nbc9862bf1613ef21@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g1s9p3+nto8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0806012007p2369e332wd41a2c16433486a2@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183106

Carol:
I don't think that even Umbridge would dare to boast
openly of a connection with the Selwyns, one of whom is a DE, if it
weren't true, nor would she have any kind of connection with Lucius
Malfoy, as she clearly does in OoP (which implies that she's a former
Slytherin given the students she recruits for the Inquisitorial Squad)
if she were Muggle-born. I think we're deliberately shown Selwyn twice
(in "The Seven Potters" and "The Deathly Hallows," IIRC) if we weren't
supposed to notice him and connect the two when Umbridge herself
brings up the connection.

Debbie:
Umbridge doesn't just boast that she's related to the Selwyns; she claims to
be related to most of the old pureblood families.  She's talking about her
entire family tree, not just her closest relatives, so I don't think
boasting of a Selwyn connection would immediately arouse Yaxley's
suspicion.  Sirius stated in OOP that the old pureblood families are all
interrelated, so as I read her statement, she's not implying a close
connection.  Her supposed Selwyn ancestor may have been born centuries ago.
(As a real-world example, I am related to some of the Amish families in
Pennsylvania, but our common ancestor was born in the 17th century.)  We are
shown a Selwyn before the scene at the Ministry so we understand who the
Selwyns are and what Umbridge is trying to do, i.e., Voldemort is in control
of the Ministry and Umbridge is claiming a connection to a pureblood DE
family.  Smart career move.

As for Umbridge's connection with Lucius Malfoy, Lucius had been courting
Fudge, as Harry saw when he was at the Ministry for his hearing.  Umbridge
was Fudge's undersecretary, charged with implementing his policies at
Hogwarts.  I don't believe a stronger connection was necessary to explain
Umbridge's choice of Draco and other Slytherins for the Inquisitorial
Squad.  I also should clarify that I don't believe that Umbridge is
muggleborn; rather, I expect she (like Riddle and many others) has a more
chequered heritage than she wants to admit.

Carol:
(BTW, she didn't get the locket in a pawn
shop; she took it from Mundungus as an alternative to sending him to
prison. I think she saw that it was Slytherinish, not to mention
valuable, and I think that the "S" being for Selwyn must have popped
into her mind at the time as a plausible explanation for her wearing
an initial that was not her own.

Debbie:
Arrgh, I'd forgotten this point.  As Potioncat points out, this is better
than a pawnshop, and classic Umbridge lawlessness.  You may be right that
she decided to pass it off as a Selwyn artifact later.  Actually, we're not
sure when she started wearing it.  She may have pulled it out after the DEs
took over the Ministry on the theory that under the new regime, connections
to the old pureblood families are the best means of getting ahead.  Given
Umbridge's usual (dis)regard for the truth, fabricating a connection would
not be out of character.

Carol:
I don't suspect her of having any sort of crush on "Cornelius" or him
of liking her in any sort of romantic way. (Gag!) I suspect her and
her ally, Lucius Malfoy of manipulating Fudge in OoP, one through
bribes and the other through psychology. I'm not sure that he ever saw
through her, or that Rufus Scrimgeour did, until it was too late and
the MoM had been infiltrated by DEs (at which point, Scrimgeour had
only a short time to live).

Debbie:
Umbridge does tend to take the implementation of Fudge's wishes into her own
hands, but I don't recall any canon showing Umbridge and Lucius working
together to manipulate Fudge.  Umbridge doesn't seem to manipulate Fudge but
rather goes off vigilante-style to carry out his objectives without regard
to law or safety, using whatever works -- Dementors, Crucio, in addition to
the usual lies.

The crush is pure speculation; the real point is that by using his first
name she implies a closeness that may or may not exist.

Carol:
How did Umbridge get Mad-eye Moody's eye if she didn't have a rather
close connection to a DE, the logical candidate being Selwyn? I don't
think it was Yaxley; he'd have taken it for his *own* office. And it
can't be the wandless Lucius, now completely powerless and out of
favor with LV and the MoM.

Debbie:
To my knowledge, there is no canon indicating that the DEs succeeded in
finding Mad-Eye's body (in fact, there's no canon that they actually looked
for it, only Bill's concern that they might find it first).  However, a
statement in the following chapter implies that the Ministry might have
found the body:

"They had not been able to hold a funeral for Moody, because Bill and Lupin
had failed to recover his body.  It had been difficult to know where he
might have fallen, given the darkness and the confusion of the battle.
'The Daily Prophet hasn't said a word about him dying, or about finding the
body,' Bill went on. 'But that doesn't mean much.  It's keeping a lot quiet
these days.' .  . . 'Scrimgeour doesn't want to admit that You-Know-Who is
as powerful as he is, nor that Azkaban's seen a mass breakout.'"

This language seems to imply that the Ministry may have discovered the body,
but suppressed the news.  Considering how Umbridge acquired the locket, it's
not hard to imagine her appropriating the magical eye in the same fashion.

Also, I can see Umbridge using her usual means to procure objects she's
interested in.  Moreover, I would have thought that the DEs would have
considered the magical eye too valuable to hand over to Umbridge, or anyone
else who wasn't a DE.  It's not like she was using it for any purpose the
DEs could possibly have cared about.  Spying on one's employees is petty and
a bit sad.

Debbie
who hasn't read much canon lately except for a recent reread of DH, and
hopes that people will kindly point out any factual errors


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  2 04:22:52 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:22:52 -0000
Subject: Hmmm.  What's your favorite *now*?
In-Reply-To: <g1vai5+gv0u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g1vsis+imb4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183107

> > Sherry:
> > But some of the luster and absolute fun of the series died for
> > me when Sirius died. Even that goes back to Harry, because I
> > wanted Harry to have his godfather, someone who was his family,
> > his own parental figure.  And, part of it was just because
> > I liked Sirius, even with his flaws.
> 
> Mike:
> Good point, Sherry. Lot's of the fun went out of the series when 
> Sirius got stuck in 12 GP and when he dies. 
> 
> I forgot to mention one of my other favorite scenes in the series: 
> the cave scene in GoF. Sirius was being a friend, a father figure, a 
> loyal ally, and a rascal all at once. I loved how he dissected Crouch 
> Sr., how he went where nobody else seemed willing to go when Ron 
> challenged him with "Try us!". I was glad for his VWI explanations, 
> his exposition on the Unforgivables and Crouch, and his concern for 
> how "one treats his inferiors". And I absolutely loved the way he 
> elicited knowing smiles from Ron and Harry with his little dig on 
> Snape.

Montavilla47:
I have to agree with you both.  It wasn't even that Sirius died in OotP.
It was that he became a disappointing, depressing person.  Instead
of being the fatherly, responsible figure that he was in both PoA
and GoF, he was drinking, laying guilt trips on Harry, and picking
stupid fights with Snape.

At the end of GoF, there was this feeling that those who opposed
Voldemort were coming together, and that Snape and Sirius 
would work on putting aside their differences.  

Instead, the Order turned out to be filled with bickering and 
rancor.  Not just Snape and Sirius, but Molly and Sirius 
took pot shots at each other.  And, there was that morale-
destroying portrait in the hallway screaming at everyone.

And cumulatively, there was a lot of not-fun going on
during OotP.  


> Mike:
> I would have adored JKR if she had killed off Snape in OotP, instead 
> of Sirius. ;-) Couldn't have happened, but one can dream, can't one?

Montavilla47:
I wish that, before Sirius had been killed off, we could have had at 
least a clue that he was getting better.  It wasn't so much that he 
died that disturbed me, but that he had such a crummy year leading
up to his death.

I wanted him to get his act together for Harry. 






From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Jun  2 07:18:08 2008
From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:18:08 -0000
Subject: Mourning Snape's life
In-Reply-To: <g1u02v+91tl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g206rg+5isl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183108

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" <zarleycat at ...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "seventeensilversickles" 
> <formerlysane@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > When Snape died, I was quite upset because I'd become very fond 
of 
> him 
> > (despite his basic unpleasantness).  But the emptiness of Snape's 
> life 
> > was even more disturbing to me than his death.  He was such a 
> great 
> > character, so many layers and facets to the man.  
> > 

I think your reaction was a very common one. I was very upset by the 
end JKR gave him and the lack of any resolution with Harry compounded 
it. The fact that lots of people felt the same is borne out by the 
number of Fanfics which have been written to try to end the story in 
a way that is more satisfying for those of us who 'needed' Snape 
vindicated properly.

I came to feel that the whole series was actually 'The Tragedy of 
Severus Snape'. His tragic flaw as a teenager led him into a life 
lived solely to try to right the wrong. He 'died' when Lily did and 
the rest of his life was a living purgatory. Bleak indeed.

RIP Severus.




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Mon Jun  2 15:17:53 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:17:53 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mourning Snape's life
In-Reply-To: <g206rg+5isl@eGroups.com>
References: <g1u02v+91tl@eGroups.com> <g206rg+5isl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806020817t1dc478c4s47f60db8932f7f9@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183109

There was so much potential in Snape's life, but at every opportunity he
chose the easy way, the way his family had taught him. And, considering that
although he always went along with the pureblood philosophies, despite being
halfblood himself, there was a lot of self-loathing he was dealing with
too. Its sad, but also a good object lesson. A lot of people have similar
attitudes and not everyone comes to understand the wrongness of them or if
they do can overcome them to find a fuller life.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  2 17:48:41 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:48:41 -0000
Subject: Xeniphilius, Hostages, and Voldemort (WAS: Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: )
In-Reply-To: <g1hqcb+obic@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g21bpp+epak@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183110

> > Jerri: 
> > I may be alone in this, but I feel great sympathy with 
> > Xenophilius. His only daughter is a hostage, who knows where
> > with who knows what being done to her.  How many of you parents 
> > feel CERTAIN that you would have the strength not to betray a
> > person who you supported in theory but didn't know when your
> > child's life was on the line?
> 
> Zara:
> I agree entirely. Xenophilius was acting under duress. Before
> Luna was kidnapped, he had gone out of his way to support Harry
> with the Quibbler. 
> 
> I also think the text encourages us to be sympathetic to him,
> <snip>

Mike:
Sympathize with - yes. How could one not feel sorry for Xeno for the 
situation he has with Luna? But excuse - no. Sure, Xeno should stop 
supporting Harry in the Quibbler, not do anything to piss off the DEs 
and/or Voldemort any more. As long as they have Luna he should keep 
his head down and go back to printing the nutty stories he used to. 
Or maybe even print the kind of stories Voldemort wants. Become 
disactive in the fight and disengage from the resistance. But 
negotiating with the DEs or becoming proactive on behalf of the DEs 
is folly and pointless. They are never going to let Luna go 
voluntarily and becoming helpful will have the opposite effect that 
Xeno wants.

Xeno did not have to call the DEs and try to turn over Harry. I think 
we were meant to contrast Xeno's actions with Draco's actions, as 
Zara did. Xeno was a good guy coerced into acting bad. Draco was 
ostensibly a bad guy that didn't want to be there anymore.


> Zara:
> I have always felt the same way about the criticism of Draco's 
> character development, also, the idea that Draco regresses/does
> not progress, after the Tower scene, because he does not choose
> to fight for the Order. I am not saying he would have wanted to
> fight for the other side, but he could not even run and hide,
> while his parents were hostages. The most he could do, was
> precisely what he did do - follow orders (as when he tortured
> people on Voldemort's orders, with a lack of enthusiasm that was
> evident to Harry) and try not to be helpful when he could avoid
> it (as when he did not identify the Trio at Malfoy Manor).

Mike:
Yes, precisely how Xeno should have approached his situation. Don't 
openly rebel against the bad guys, but be of as little help as 
possible. As Zara said, "follow orders". Xeno called in the DEs, that 
was going above and beyond following orders. There is no reason to be 
helpful to the DEs at this point. They wouldn't give Luna back even 
if they had captured Harry on Xeno's betrayal.

As Goddlefrood pointed out, Xeno, "his being a little eccentric and 
quite possibly even barmy" allows us to forgive him this betrayal. 
Based on his character I suppose one couldn't expect better. So I 
will forgive him, but I don't excuse him. What he did was still wrong 
if not out-of-character.

Mike, who quite frankly could have done without Xeno entirely, which 
would have probably meant doing without the Deathly Hallows. And that 
would have been bad, how? ;-)




From leahstill at hotmail.com  Mon Jun  2 17:52:17 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:52:17 -0000
Subject: Mourning Snape's life
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806020817t1dc478c4s47f60db8932f7f9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g21c0h+pj93@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183111

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" <sweenlit at ...> 
wrote:
>
> There was so much potential in Snape's life,

Leah: There was so much potential in Snape himself.  As to his life, 
being born into a slum-dwelling, neglectful, unhappy and possibly 
abusive family life is not normally taken as offering a lot of 
potential.  Neither is being bullied at school, publically 
humiliated, and possibly set up to be killed.  He did do well 
academically, and choose to spend his whole life serving Dumbledore 
and teaching rather then researching etc etc in reparation for 
Lily's death and to protect her son.    

 but at every opportunity he
> chose the easy way, the way his family had taught him. And, 
considering that
> although he always went along with the pureblood philosophies, 
despite being
> halfblood himself, there was a lot of self-loathing he was dealing 
with
> too. 

We don't know what Snape's family taught him. Presumably his father 
didn't teach him anything about the wizarding world, except to 
distrust Muggles.  His mother married a Muggle, which hardly seems 
to make her a pureblood fanatic.  At the age of 10/11 all we can say 
is that Snape knows that being Muggleborn can make a difference, 
which is an unfortunate fact of wizarding life, that he wants to be 
sorted into Slytherin because it's the house for 'brains', and he 
believes Muggleborns can be sorted there too.   He does not go along 
with pureblood philosophies when he becomes friends with Muggleborn 
Lily, when he tries to reassure her that being Muggleborn won't make 
a difference, when he continues to want to be her 'best friend' 
years after he's been sorted into a house with Death Eater 
wannabees. Neither is he going along with those philosophies when he 
tells Phineas Nigellus not to use the word Mudblood. 

Yes, he does become a Death Eater for reasons which are never made 
totally clear in canon. However,the easy way for him to take would 
have been to say 'tough' when he found the Potters were being 
targeted by the prophecy, and continue to rise in Voldemort's favour 
once they were all dead.  If Voldemort lost anyway, he could have 
pretended to have been imperiused like Lucius Malfoy.  The easy way 
would not involve returning to Voldemort as a spy, agreeing to kill 
Dumbledore and be reviled as a traitor, trying to save Lupin,trying 
to save those of Vodlemort's victims whom he can and failing to 
inform Voldemort that Draco Malfoy had disarmed Dumbledore.   

Snape is full of self-loathing, but I've never got the impression 
any of that was to do with being a half-blood.  Calling 
yourself 'the Half-Blood Prince' is rather more honest and self-
deprecating than deciding that you are 'Lord Voldemort'. 



>Its sad, but also a good object lesson. A lot of people have similar
> attitudes and not everyone comes to understand the wrongness of 
them or if
> they do can overcome them to find a fuller life.

Leah: What stops Snape finding a fuller life is his guilt over 
Lily's death and his attempt to make reparation by protecting Harry 
from Voldemort.

Leah
> 





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  2 19:03:57 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:03:57 -0000
Subject: Mourning Snape's life
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806020817t1dc478c4s47f60db8932f7f9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g21g6t+lndl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183112

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" <sweenlit at ...> wrote:
>
> There was so much potential in Snape's life, but at every opportunity he
> chose the easy way, the way his family had taught him. And, considering that
> although he always went along with the pureblood philosophies, despite being
> halfblood himself, there was a lot of self-loathing he was dealing with
> too. Its sad, but also a good object lesson. A lot of people have similar
> attitudes and not everyone comes to understand the wrongness of them or if
> they do can overcome them to find a fuller life.
> 
> Lynda

Montavilla47:
I'll agree that Snape made the wrong choice in his teen years, but I don't agree
that he made easy choices.  He never had any easy choices. 

Also, we really don't know what his family taught him (beyond the knowledge 
that there were dementors at Azkaban). The only thing we know about his 
family was that his mother was a witch, his father was a muggle, and they didn't 
get along.

His love of the Dark Arts--was that a choice?  Do we choose the things we 
love to do in life?  That seems as silly as saying one chooses to the people
we are attracted to.  And, as we can see from his teaching and his healing,
an interest in the Dark Arts is not necessarily negative.  Had he not been
fascinated by curses and Dark Spells, Dumbledore and Katie Bell would have 
died much sooner.

His sorting into Slytherin.  Was that a choice?  He was glad to be there,
because he thought it was the House of Brains, but the Sorting Hat didn't
ponder, and Harry seems to be the first person to find out that you can
ask for a House.  It's not common knowledge.

The choice that Lily gave him was to give up his friends or to give up her.
His choice would have been to to give up neither.  But the choice she 
demanded was not easy.  To have chosen her would have meant being
targeted by two sets of bullies, instead of just one.  The bullies he did
have had already shown themselves capable of killing.  So were the 
ones he was friendly with.  

Should he have chosen Lily?  That would have been the morally right 
choice.  But it was a choice that would have cost him any peace of mind
during his final years at school--and it could easily have cost him his
life shortly afterward--as it did her.

Was joining the Death Eaters an easy choice for Snape?  I don't see
how it could possibly have been easy.  Their agenda was known.  And,
even if he disliked or even hated his father, he lived among muggles.
Did he hate them all?  His neighbors?  The kids he went to school
with for five years?  How could he hate all muggles when he knew 
Lily and knew her family?  

It was absolutely the wrong choice, but Snape wasn't Voldemort, 
who cared only about himself.  It couldn't have been an *easy* choice.

Once Snape realized that someone he loved was threatened, he 
started making very hard choices--and he kept on making 
them until he died.  

He chose to tell Dumbledore that the Potters had been targeted 
by Voldemort.  

He chose to do "anything" in return for Dumbledore protecting 
Lily.

He chose to continue protecting Harry after Dumbledore failed
him.

He chose to continue protecting Harry after realizing that he 
hated the brat.

He chose to make potions to help a man he had good reasons
to hate.

He chose to turn in to justice a man he had *every* reason to
hate, rather than take personal revenge.

He chose to spy on Voldemort, rather than running away or
staying in the protection of the school.

He chose to sacrifice his oldest friendships by lying to his
friends for Dumbledore.

He chose to save Dumbledore's life, and then he chose to
end it to save Dumbledore pain.

He chose to risk his life to protect the son of his friends.

He chose to play a role which would leave all decent 
people despising him, in order to protect the students
of Hogwarts from greater harm--knowing that he could
not possibly protect them completely.

He chose to sacrifice his most private memories in order to 
fulfill Dumbledore's plan.

Hard choices all.

Montavilla47






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Jun  2 19:09:17 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:09:17 -0000
Subject: Mediocre and letters and Re: Hmmm. What's your favorite *now*?
In-Reply-To: <g1qe2q+p3j8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g21ggt+5t8o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183113

Potioncat:
I'm responding to these noted posts, and to others in the thread all 
lumped together, but not as neatly as Catlady does it. I've cut and 
pasted to word and back. I hope we don't get odd little fairy marks.

>Post 183075 Magpie:
Me neither. I don't know who said that line that you quoted as me,
but it wasn't me.:-)
snip
Though I would read about a mediocre kid. I like reading about
mediocre people who rise to be something special. Harry, however, is
the Chosen One who discovers more super powers as he goes.

Potioncat:
That would be me. And I used mediocre sort of tongue in cheek because 
that's the word Snape uses. Mediocre has two meanings according to my 
Websters. The first is "neither good nor bad, OK." The second 
is "inferior."  From a Snapish point of view, Harry fits both 
definitions. I'm sure Snape sees him as inferior. I see Harry as OK. 
He has certain areas that he does better in, but for the part he's 
average. I don't see Harry has having super powers at any point of 
the story. 


>Post 183075 Carol:
Snip
 We're supposed to see Harry as small, skinny, outnumbered,
bullied, and essentially helpless, but not desperate enough to call up
the accidental magic he doesn't know he possesses. 

Potioncat:
Exactly! I've gone back and re-read the first 3 chapters. We may know 
that there's something special about Harry as he's left on the 
doorstep, but we find a fairly ordinary boy 11 years later. Yes, we 
learn about some strange things that have happened. But Harry didn't 
know he had made them happen. We'll learn later that accidental magic 
is very normal for wizarding children.  Nothing special so far. If 
anything, the reader might be surprised that the baby everyone was 
talking about has grown into a skinny kid with glasses.

Now, had Harry been extraordinary, we might have seen some 
intentional magic---his mother could work wandless magic at his age. 
We might have seen him overcoming the bullying, or finding other 
sources of food.  


>Post 183082Magpie:
Yes, But we were talking about whether the whole thing with the
letters is about showing us that Harry is an ordinary boy, which is a
very specific thing. And I'm saying that the book doesn't start
with "Meet Harry Potter, ordinary boy." 


Potioncat:
Well, all of us knew he was going to be hero; his name is part of the 
title. Depending on when a reader/kid started reading, they might 
know just how much Harry would accomplish. But he is ordinary. Isn't 
that just like JKR to turn things around? 

She gives us a wizard in a regular neighborhood, and yet he's the 
powerless one. She sends him off to Wizarding School and he doesn't 
pick everything up right away. He just like the other new students--
only some of them can already work magic. Yet he's the hero of the 
story.

We find out later that some characters thought he would be a powerful 
dark wizard. Yet he's just a kid like all the others. I think that's 
part of the appeal to the Harry Potter story. He's just like everyone 
else. When the time comes, he will show extraordinary courage and 
extraordinary love, but till that point, he's a regular Joe. 


>Post 183080 Magpie:
 I realize that *Harry* doesn't know who he is yet, but
every kid reading the book knows, just as I did, that he's not
ordinary, just as they can see that his situation isn't ordinary with
Uncle Vernon etc. I know it's supposed to be comic, I just find it
tedious. Sometimes you enjoy watching the person find out something
you already know, but the chapter full of "Here's a letter. Psych!
Can't read it!" drove me nuts.

Potioncat:
Yes, back to the letters:

I was reminded as I re-read, how much this book reminded me of Roald 
Dahl's style when I first read it. Vernon is over the top with the 
letters, the amount of letters is over the top. Certainly Harry's 
treatment by the Dursleys is farfetched.

If I made it this far on my first read, and I'm not sure I did, I 
probably quit here. As I was re-reading the chapters  this time I 
kept thinking, "This is so cool!" and "This is going to come back 
later." and also, "Get on with it, pick up the pace!"

But something did jump out at me, with my DH-eye sight. On the very 
first page is the word "secret"
..for what it's worth.












From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Jun  2 19:43:55 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:43:55 -0000
Subject: Mediocre and letters and Re: Hmmm. What's your favorite *now*?
In-Reply-To: <g21ggt+5t8o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g21ihr+5sbv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183114

> >Post 183075 Magpie:
> Me neither. I don't know who said that line that you quoted as me,
> but it wasn't me.:-)
> snip
> Though I would read about a mediocre kid. I like reading about
> mediocre people who rise to be something special. Harry, however, is
> the Chosen One who discovers more super powers as he goes.
> 
> Potioncat:
> That would be me. And I used mediocre sort of tongue in cheek 
because 
> that's the word Snape uses. Mediocre has two meanings according to 
my 
> Websters. The first is "neither good nor bad, OK." The second 
> is "inferior."  From a Snapish point of view, Harry fits both 
> definitions. I'm sure Snape sees him as inferior. I see Harry as 
OK. 
> He has certain areas that he does better in, but for the part he's 
> average. I don't see Harry has having super powers at any point of 
> the story. 

Magpie:
He's the one who can defeat Voldemort. He has visions. He can fly 
amazingly well without ever getting on a broom. He can throw off 
Imperius instinctively. He can cast a Patronus at 13. He speaks 
Parseltongue. All these things are unusual and extraordinary 
according to canon. 

He doesn't do everything exceptionally well--he can't do Occlumency, 
he's an ordinary student in most subjects. But chalk these things up 
to whatever you like (Voldemort, he inherited flying talent from his 
father, his experiences make him strong--whatever), Harry having 
special abilities is very often part of the storyline.

> >Post 183082Magpie:
> Yes, But we were talking about whether the whole thing with the
> letters is about showing us that Harry is an ordinary boy, which is 
a
> very specific thing. And I'm saying that the book doesn't start
> with "Meet Harry Potter, ordinary boy." 
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Well, all of us knew he was going to be hero; his name is part of 
the 
> title. Depending on when a reader/kid started reading, they might 
> know just how much Harry would accomplish. But he is ordinary. 
Isn't 
> that just like JKR to turn things around? 

Magpie:
She's not turning things around that much--this way of doing it is 
pretty standard. The first chapter has told me there's something 
special about this kid already. It doesn't matter that when I meet 
him he seems, not ordinary, but exceptionally mistreated. I already 
know there's something special about him so I'm just waiting to find 
out the specifics. It's only Harry himself who is confused.

Superman's a regular Joe when he's not being Superman too. It's not 
that I don't see both sides of Harry. But I can't believe that even 
at 11 I'd be reading those first chapters and not be waiting to find 
out how put-upon Harry is really extremely special or falling for the 
illusion that he's ordinary.

-m




From kersberg at chello.nl  Mon Jun  2 16:50:18 2008
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:50:18 -0000
Subject: Identity of "that awful boy"
In-Reply-To: <g1s4qr+100uv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g218ca+n4ll@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183115

When reading Order of the Phoenix it never occured to me for one
moment that Snape could be the one behind "that aweful boy." I was
reading it with the other four released books all at once and as fast
as possible, so much passed by me at that time.

Only after Half-Blood Prince the idea started to form that it could
be possible, Slughorn's reference to Lily as Potions genius could
have formed the alliance between Lily and Severus, but I did not
take it very much serious. The consequence would be that the whole
marriage between Lily and James was something like:
"Nasty arrogant rich kid snatched La Belle d'Ecole before the nose
of ugly bookish nerd." And just for the sake of nagging him, not for
loving the lass. It was a current joke among Snapofiles.

So when it actually turned out, that Snape loved Lilly I sort of felt
teased with a cheap trick.

But even accepting the canon, it does not sit well with me.
We are told that James loved Lily, but we are shown that Severus
loved her in a more direct way. James loving Lily becomes a sort of
hear-say and that is not enough. JKR left a huge gap by not showing
what made Lilly changed her opinion about James from being an
arrogant toerag to the one she wanted to share her life ( and death)
with. You almost start to believe she became pregnant at the
Graduation Party, were it not that, that was a year before the actual
conception.

kamion



From kersberg at chello.nl  Mon Jun  2 17:31:52 2008
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:31:52 -0000
Subject: Mourning Snape's life
In-Reply-To: <g1qbp7+vcld@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g21aq8+s20n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183116

I sort of read the death of Snape as an easy way out of a plot knot.
The man had been the key instrument to Harry's fate and success, but in
such a way that he never could and would be honored for it. Harry's
revelation to Voldemort that Snape had always been Dumbledore's man,
would have made little impact as soon as the dust settled down and
Snape would always been seen as the murderer of the greatest wizard in
ages. And as most likely not all the admirers of Voldemort disappeared
into Azkaban - not all were Death Eaters and guilty of crimes - he also
remained at risk as treated of as traitor of the Dark Lord.

Killing him off was a more easy solution then giving him a future as
the most despised wizard in history.

He deserved better.

kamion



From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Jun  3 02:15:21 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:15:21 -0000
Subject: Giants and Voldemort (WAS:  What's your favorite *now*?)
In-Reply-To: <g1v885+bq6k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g229fp+ivut@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183117

Mike:
> It's your second part (below the <snip>) where I'm not following. Why 
> did we have to be put through 'Hagrid's Tale' in OotP? Were we 
> supposed to see the parallel between the new Gurg and Voldemort's 
> second coming? Or was the giant's story a cautionary tale 
> forshadowing Voldemort's entire story and what would happen to him?
> 

Pippin:
I think it's supposed to give us the worst case scenario. The Hat
warns that Hogwarts, and by extension the WW, may crumple from within
-- we have to see what that means. The giants aren't threatened
directly by either Hagrid's embassy or the DE's, but their coming sets
the giants at war with each other.
 
Without  Hagrid's Tale, we would still have all the individual losses
in war, but we wouldn't see that regardless of who wins, war can
destroy a society.

Pippin 


 




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  3 15:30:40 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:30:40 -0000
Subject: Giants and Voldemort (WAS:  What's your favorite *now*?)
In-Reply-To: <g229fp+ivut@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g23o30+im4m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183118

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> Mike:
> > It's your second part (below the <snip>) where I'm not following. Why 
> > did we have to be put through 'Hagrid's Tale' in OotP? Were we 
> > supposed to see the parallel between the new Gurg and Voldemort's 
> > second coming? Or was the giant's story a cautionary tale 
> > forshadowing Voldemort's entire story and what would happen to him?
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> I think it's supposed to give us the worst case scenario. The Hat
> warns that Hogwarts, and by extension the WW, may crumple from within
> -- we have to see what that means. The giants aren't threatened
> directly by either Hagrid's embassy or the DE's, but their coming sets
> the giants at war with each other.
>  
> Without  Hagrid's Tale, we would still have all the individual losses
> in war, but we wouldn't see that regardless of who wins, war can
> destroy a society.
> 
> Pippin

Montavilla47:
Well, that's A reason, anyway.  My take on it was that JKR had to 
deal somehow with the concept of other races and magical beings,
and Hagrid's tale was to kill of the idea that the giants would have
any significant role to play.  

In a sense it was the opposite of the excellent planting of Peter
as Scabbers in the early books.  She had planted the idea of
an international war beginning any minute now that Voldemort
had returned, and then in the next book, she ripped it up by
the roots--taking back to a point where Voldemort is out
there, but without making any overt moves.

As for the destroying of a society, I think we got that concept
from the entire Umbridge/Fudge/Dumbledore storyline.  
Because of Fudge's fear of war, there was schism between
him and Dumbledore (whereas before, Fudge was always
asking for Dumbledore's advice).  

Because of the schism, Umbridge was placed at Hogwarts
to discredit Dumbledore, and "interfere," as Hermione put it.
Because of her meddlesome interference and refusal to 
teach students the skills of war, the school erupted into 
vandalism and insurrection.  (One could wish that a 
certain world leader had read this cautionary tale!)

This storyline, to me at least, brilliantly showed that 
in a political conflict, no one really won.  By the end of the
year, the castle was a mess, a couple of students seemed
to have suffered grievous (if not permanent) magical 
damage, several of the teachers had been fired or sent to
St. Mungo's, and the resulting absence of trusted adults
caused Harry to make a terrible mistake.

What I got from Hagrid's Tale was that Fudge (and the
conventional wisdom of the wizarding world) was 
correct about the giants.  They were a primitive,
savage society which couldn't make any positive 
contribution to the War Against Death Eaters (WADE), 
and their own self-destruction was the best thing 
for all concerned.  Which, I suppose, must have been
Dumbledore's plan all along....

After all, he told Fudge that ambassadors must be 
sent immediately to the giants.  He didn't say that they
had to enlist them to help against Voldemort, but only
prevent them from joining the Dark Lord's side.

Montavilla47





From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Wed Jun  4 01:14:34 2008
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:14:34 -0000
Subject: Mourning Snape's life
In-Reply-To: <g21g6t+lndl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g24q9q+otra@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183119

"Lynda Cordova" <sweenlit@> wrote:
> > There was so much potential in Snape's life, but at every 
> > opportunity he chose the easy way, the way his family had taught 
> > him. 

Montavilla47:
> I'll agree that Snape made the wrong choice in his teen years, but 
> I don't agree that he made easy choices.  He never had any easy 
> choices. 

<snip impressive list of examples to support this position>

SSSusan:
And that above <snip> remark of mine probably indicates quite clearly 
that I agree with Montavilla (and Leah, who posted examples as well).


Montavilla: 
> He chose to sacrifice his most private memories in order to 
> fulfill Dumbledore's plan.

SSSusan:
And THIS is the one extremely hard choice which gets me the most.  I 
believe it had to be one of the hardest choices Snape ever made.  I 
found it to be selfless and generous of spirit, a true gift to 
Harry.  Yeah, so maybe it was ultimately the final gift for Lily, but 
still, it had to be exceptionally difficult.

This moment is, for me, one of the most chillingly well-crafted of 
all that JKR wrote in this series.  When Snape whispers, "Look... 
at... me..." it does likely mean that Snape wants one final look 
at "Lily's" eyes, but I am convinced that JKR was also writing a 
Snape who was telling Harry to look *at* him, to look at *what* he 
was giving him, so that he could understand.  

It was, if not precisely a double entendre, still sort of a double 
entendre... a phrase used with two distinct messages or to two 
distinct purposes.

I cannot wait to see this played out in TMWSNBN.  So help me G-d, 
that had better *not* get cut!

Siriusly Snapey Susan





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  4 06:24:13 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:24:13 -0000
Subject: Mourning Snape's life - Objective Truth
In-Reply-To: <g21aq8+s20n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g25ced+bv2b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183120

--- "kamion53" <kersberg at ...> wrote:
>
> I sort of read the death of Snape as an easy way out of a plot
> knot.
>
> ... 
> 
> Killing him off was a more easy solution then giving him a 
> future as the most despised wizard in history.
> 
> He deserved better.
> 
> kamion
>

bboyminn:

Consider what it appeared that Snape had done in killing 
Dumbledore. How could anyone, especially Harry, ever be made
to believe Snape when he told Harry what he had to do? Yet,
that was exactly what Snape's instructions from Dumbledore
were. To tell Harry the whole truth in the final hours of
the inevitable battle. But again, how could Harry be made to
accept that truth as reality.

The only way was a death bed confession or dying declaration. 
Snape would have nothing to gain at the moment of death from 
lies. Also, we know the Penseive doesn't lie. Memories can be
altered or blocked out, but they can never be lies; they are 
fully objective.

I wondered about this as we were pondering what might happen
in the final book, and, as far as I was concerned, one of the
greatest mysteries was how Snape would bring Harry around to
his way of thinking. I couldn't imagine how that could 
possibly happen with the animosity between them so great. 

But, JKR found a way that satisfied everything. She found away
for Snape to give Harry clear objective truth in a way that 
Harry would never question. 

So, I ask, if not this way, then in what way?

Steve/bboyminn




From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  4 09:16:55 2008
From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:16:55 -0000
Subject: Reason for Ron's fears?
Message-ID: <g25mi7+a620@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183121

Why did Ron feel insecure of Harry/Hermione's friendship despite obvious hints (like, say, Hermione being absolutely comfortable about Harry's love interests in Cho/Ginny or, say, Harry never worrying about Hermione's letter to Krum)? I would like to hear your views or pointers to interesting articles!

happyjoeysmiley





From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  4 11:28:04 2008
From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:28:04 -0000
Subject: Harry and Hermione: Queries about their friendship
Message-ID: <g25u84+qiah@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183122

Now, I was never a H/Hr shipper (or any shipper for that matter). In
fact, it is the platonic nature of Harry/Hermione's friendship that I
find endearing. :) I like the friendship (and romance) between Ron and Hermione as well, and same goes for the cute friendship between Harry and Ron.

Having said all that, I was just wondering if Harry loves Hermione
as much as she loves him.

For instance, in PoA, though Harry knew Hermione meant well, he could
not help being angry with her regarding the Firebolt. In GoF, JKR
makes it clear that Harry enjoyed Ron's presence more than
Hermione's, as Ron is more fun. In OoTP, in the final scenes where
the 6 of them fight the death eaters @ MOM, I felt Harry's reaction
when Hermione drops down seemingly dead is strange - he seems to be
more worried about "it's his fault if she dies" rather than her death
itself!

At the same time, in DH, it was in front of her that he didn't
bother to hide his tears @ Godric's Hollow - a privilege he gave none
in his life.  I guess and whatever happens between them thereafter is
indeed touching. Also, JKR mentions at one point that Hermione's scream while she was being crucio-ed @ Malfoy Manor felt like "physical pain" to Harry. However, in the epilogue, not even a single explicit verbal/non-verbal conversation between these two has been highlighted. A bit strange, I thought.

So, is it just that Harry is not as comfortable as Hermione when it
comes to expressing affectionate feelings and has them all in his
heart? Or is it (painfully) true that Hermione had a strong
affection for Harry that was not reciprocated by him in *equal*
degree?

Any pointers to interesting articles with analysis and inferences
made in this context? [Not those articles that explain why Hermione
will not make a good romantic pair for Harry, please! :)]

happyjoeysmiley



From petaannfox at yahoo.com.au  Wed Jun  4 13:15:13 2008
From: petaannfox at yahoo.com.au (Peta-Ann Fox)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 06:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Reason for Ron's fears?
Message-ID: <577946.86575.qm@web35701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

happyjoeysmiley:
> Why did Ron feel insecure of Harry/Hermione' s friendship despite
> obvious hints (like, say, Hermione being absolutely comfortable
> about Harry's love interests in Cho/Ginny or, say, Harry never
> worrying about Hermione's letter to Krum)? I would like to hear
> your views or pointers to interesting articles!


Do you mean as in DH?? If so, that's because Ron's character is a little on the unsure of himself side. He was also wearing a lovely piece of jewelry that helped his uncertainties make him feel?his feelings were?realities.

Peta






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  4 16:03:38 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:03:38 -0000
Subject: Reason for Ron's fears?
In-Reply-To: <g25mi7+a620@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g26ecq+cu3j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183124

---  "happyjoeysmiley" <happyjoeysmiley at ...> wrote:
>
> Why did Ron feel insecure of Harry/Hermione's friendship 
> despite obvious hints (like, say, Hermione being absolutely
> comfortable about Harry's love interests in Cho/Ginny or, say,
> Harry never worrying about Hermione's letter to Krum)? I would
> like to hear your views or pointers to interesting articles!
> 
> happyjoeysmiley
>

bboyminn:

But it is not about the security of Harry and Hermione's
relationship. It is about Ron's personal insecurities. Fears
and insecurities are almost always irrational, and go a great
ways toward holding people back, when those people have no 
real reason to be restrained in life. 

So, Ron feels he is inadequate. He fears he won't live up to 
his families expectations. He fears he can never be Harry's 
equal, and as such, he can't imagine why any girl would prefer
him over Harry. It's not easy always being in Harry's shadow.

But, other than Harry, there are few to none of the other 
students as brave as Ron. Ron has proven himself over and
over again. So, he really has nothing to be insecure about,
yet as I said, fears and insecurities are usually irrational.

Once Ron, after the locket destruction scene, see that Harry
is not only not a threat to his desires for Hermione, but 
actually supportive of it, he mellows out a bit. 

So, in a sense Ron really has no reason to be insecure other
than his irrational insecurities. If you see what I mean.

steve/bboyminn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  4 16:17:56 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:17:56 -0000
Subject: Harry and Hermione: Queries about their friendship
In-Reply-To: <g25u84+qiah@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g26f7k+3v9i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183125

---  "happyjoeysmiley" <happyjoeysmiley at ...> wrote:
>
> Now, I was never a H/Hr shipper ....
> 
> So, is it just that Harry is not as comfortable as Hermione 
> when it comes to expressing affectionate feelings ...
> 
> ...
> 
> happyjoeysmiley
>

bboyminn:

Well, come on, Harry's a straight guy, of course he can't 
express his feelings. What straight guy can? 

I think, as Harry said, he regards Hermione as a friend
akin to a sister. Once you become overly familar with
someone, those overt and verbal displays of affection usual
stop unless you find yourselves in the most extreme of
emotional situations, and even then it is likely to be
restained. That's just 'guy' life.

Steve/bboyminn





From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Jun  4 20:57:59 2008
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:57:59 -0000
Subject: Mourning Snape's life - Objective Truth
In-Reply-To: <g25ced+bv2b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g26vkn+qdkb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183126


> >
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Consider what it appeared that Snape had done in killing 
> Dumbledore. How could anyone, especially Harry, ever be made
> to believe Snape when he told Harry what he had to do? Yet,
> that was exactly what Snape's instructions from Dumbledore
> were. To tell Harry the whole truth in the final hours of
> the inevitable battle. But again, how could Harry be made to
> accept that truth as reality.
> 
> The only way was a death bed confession or dying declaration. 
D> Snape would have nothing to gain at the moment of death from 
> lies. Also, we know the Penseive doesn't lie. Memories can be
> altered or blocked out, but they can never be lies; they are 
> fully objective.
> 
Julie:
That's a problem though. If the only way for Harry to believe
Snape is a deathbed confession or a dying declaration, then there
is a plot problem, unless Snape is *expecting* to die (or unless
*Dumbledore* is expecting Snape to die--which I wouldn't put 
past him BTW). And even if one or both of them has that expectation,
it's still pretty chancy to depend on Voldemort to play along
unwittingly and at the appropriate time (and Harry too...).

Steve again:
> I wondered about this as we were pondering what might happen
> in the final book, and, as far as I was concerned, one of the
> greatest mysteries was how Snape would bring Harry around to
> his way of thinking. I couldn't imagine how that could 
> possibly happen with the animosity between them so great. 
> 
> But, JKR found a way that satisfied everything. She found away
> for Snape to give Harry clear objective truth in a way that 
> Harry would never question. 

Julie:
JKR found a way, that's true, but I think she essentially wrote
it backwards, with her knowledge of Snape's ultimate fate giving
her the way to pass on the information to Harry. Problem is, it
isn't really very satisfying plotwise, as the right circumstances--
Voldemort killing Snape *while* Harry was secretly present and
thus able to retrieve those memories just before Snape's final
breath--happened only by chance. And as far was we know, Snape
and Dumbledore had NO real plan on how to get those memories to
Harry, at least none that they ever spoke of. Maybe they just
relied on Harry's incredible good luck in all things Voldemort
related and figured the right opportunity would present itself
at the right time. Incredibly chancy, that. And not very good
plotting, IMO. 

So, I do think it was essentially the easy way out, and would
still have been even if Snape and/or Dumbledore had planned 
Snape's death with deliberation. After all, it's always easier
to forgive the dead and sugarcoat their faults. It's much 
harder (and a potentially more character-growing experience)
to forgive face-to-face and adjust one's hardened emotions and 
perspective to incorporate new information.

Steve:
> So, I ask, if not this way, then in what way?

Julie:
You mentioned the Pensieve and of course Snape doesn't have
to be dead for Harry to see those memories. It would still 
be harder for Harry to believe a living, snarky Snape than
a dead Snape, and harder for Snape to give Harry some of 
those very personal memories, but harder is usually better
when it comes to fiction. And more interesting.

I'm sure there would have been other ways too, that involved
a greater change to the plot. At the very least, and even in 
DH as it was written, there should have been *some* plan to
get those memories to Harry, and some back up way to protect
those memories in case Snape did die prematurely (he was
playing a very dangerous game all along, after all!).

Julie




From rlaw186 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  4 15:30:29 2008
From: rlaw186 at yahoo.com (rlaw186)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:30:29 -0000
Subject: Harry and Hermione: Queries about their friendship
In-Reply-To: <g25u84+qiah@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g26cel+98bj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183127

> happyjoeysmiley wrote:
>
> Having said all that, I was just wondering if Harry loves Hermione
> as much as she loves him.

rlaw:
Harry loves Hermione as much as she loves him. It is Harry who
suggested he and Ron go back for her when she's locked in the girl's
bathroom with the troll (PS/SS),thus, cementing their friendship.


> happyjoeysmiley wrote:
>
> In OoTP, in the final scenes where the 6 of them fight the Death
> Eaters @ MOM, I felt Harry's reaction when Hermione drops down
> seemingly dead is strange - he seems to be more worried about
> "it's his fault if she dies" rather than her death itself!

rlaw:
Harry has witnessed Cedric's death and LV's return to power. If it
wasn't for Harry telling Cedric to grab the handle of the cup, he'd
still be alive. This is the same guilty conscious he has in OoTP. Had
Harry not pressured Hermoine to accompany him to the MOM (to rescue
Sirius), she would've still been safe at Hogwarts.


> happyjoeysmiley wrote:
> So, is it just that Harry is not as comfortable as Hermione when it
> comes to expressing affectionate feelings and has them all in his
> heart? Or is it (painfully) true that Hermione had a strong
> affection for Harry that was not reciprocated by him in *equal*
> degree?

rlaw:
Harry is a typical male. I personally don't know of any male who is
comfortable about expressing their feelings. But I think Harry
expresses his love for Hermoine in subtle ways. In CoS, he visits her
in the hospital wing though she is petrified and can't react or
respond. In PoA, he sits with her in the library when it is thought
to be Crookshanks that ate Scabbers. In GoF, it is Hermoine that he
goes to for help AND tries to "save" her from the mer-people. In
OotP, it is Hermoine who brings Harry out of Buckbeak's room and gets
him to talk to everyone else. In HBP, Harry leaves out of the class
after Hermoine (cause her need was greater than Ron's) when Ron and
Hermoine are no longer on speaking terms. He also spends most of his
time in the library with Hermoine (something he disliked greatly). In
DH, Harry cries in front of Hermoine. Something that most males only
do when they are completely at ease and comfortable with the person
they are around.

Rlaw



From kersberg at chello.nl  Wed Jun  4 22:00:14 2008
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:00:14 -0000
Subject: Mourning Snape's life - Objective Truth
In-Reply-To: <g25ced+bv2b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2739e+h98p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183128

> Steve/bboyminn wrote:

> Consider what it appeared that Snape had done in killing
> Dumbledore. How could anyone, especially Harry, ever be made
> to believe Snape when he told Harry what he had to do?
(-----)
> So, I ask, if not this way, then in what way?


Kamion:

How about a bottled Pensieve message from Dumbledore himself
given into Snape's care? Snape could have given that... maybe forced
upon Harry when the time was ripe.

And Harry had the experience to distinguish a tampered memory from an
untampered one. Would have given the Slughorn affair more meaning.

But I admit: a Deathbed confession is always more dramatic. However
Snape bending Harry by the neck over a Pensieve: " Look for yourself,
you fool." could be as dramatic as well.

Kamion



From witherwing at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jun  5 03:23:56 2008
From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (witherwings999)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 03:23:56 -0000
Subject: Mourning Snape's life
In-Reply-To: <g24q9q+otra@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g27m8c+eggj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183129


> SSSusan:
> This moment is, for me, one of the most chillingly well-crafted of 
> all that JKR wrote in this series.  When Snape whispers, "Look... 
> at... me..." it does likely mean that Snape wants one final look 
> at "Lily's" eyes, but I am convinced that JKR was also writing a 
> Snape who was telling Harry to look *at* him, to look at *what* he 
> was giving him, so that he could understand.  
> 
> It was, if not precisely a double entendre, still sort of a double 
> entendre... a phrase used with two distinct messages or to two 
> distinct purposes.

Witherwing:
I agree that this is one of those well-crafted passages, especially the line "Look... at... 
me..." 

After a recent rereading of Deathly Hallows I was once again struck by this line, and am 
now wondering about a possible third distinct reading of that line. In addition to Snape's 
wanting to see Lily's eyes, and wanting Harry to see the real Snape, I think Snape may be 
attempting some Legilimency on Harry in his dying moments. 

Why? Well, perhaps Snape is trying to read Harry's intentions, to gain some insight into the 
details Dumbledore entusted to Harry, but not to Snape. I imagine he was desperate to 
know if Harry really was prepared to give himself up for slaughter. Furthermore, is it 
possible Snape was able to glean enough from Harry's mind to see a way out for Harry? 
Did he see a flaw in the plan? Hadn't Harry moments before figured out that he, himself, 
not Snape, was master of the Elder Wand?

Maybe it is too far-fetched, but as a Snape fan, it makes me happier to imagine he DID 
glimpse something there that gave him a bit more peace before dying, beyond *being 
seen* by Harry, and looking at Lily's eyes.

~ Witherwing





From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  5 04:41:08 2008
From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 04:41:08 -0000
Subject: Harry and Hermione: Queries about their friendship
In-Reply-To: <g26cel+98bj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g27qp4+1066@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183130

> rlaw:
> Harry loves Hermione as much as she loves him. It is Harry who
> suggested he and Ron go back for her when she's locked in the
> girl's bathroom with the troll (PS/SS),thus, cementing their
> friendship.
<SNIP>
> rlaw:
> Harry has witnessed Cedric's death and LV's return to power.
> If it wasn't for Harry telling Cedric to grab the handle of
> the cup, he'd still be alive.
<SNIP>
> rlaw:
> Harry is a typical male. I personally don't know of any male
> who is comfortable about expressing their feelings. But I
> think Harry expresses his love for Hermoine in subtle ways.
<SNIP - examples>


Well-explained, I guess. :) Yet I personally do know of men who
are comfortable about expressing their feelings. :)

Yeah, may be it's just a personality trait of Harry's. I also
remember that in DH, when he wanted to thank Molly for the 17th-
b'day gift, he preferred to hug her than, you know, talk about
it to her (and also hoped to convey everything in that hug!).
It made me smile and shake my head - I did find him sweet
nevertheless. :)

But the firebolt-rift in PoA and he finding Ron more fun than
Hermione in GoF are still a disappointment, aren't they? :)
Yeah, he did make up for the rift in PoA later. Yet I was
extremely glad that Hagrid had told him and Ron that Hermione
is more important than broomsticks and rats. :)

Cheers,
Joey



From leahstill at hotmail.com  Thu Jun  5 08:38:18 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:38:18 -0000
Subject: Mourning Snape's life - Objective Truth
In-Reply-To: <g25ced+bv2b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g288lq+2dg9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183131

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> > 
> Consider what it appeared that Snape had done in killing 
> Dumbledore. How could anyone, especially Harry, ever be made
> to believe Snape when he told Harry what he had to do? Yet,
> that was exactly what Snape's instructions from Dumbledore
> were. To tell Harry the whole truth in the final hours of
> the inevitable battle. But again, how could Harry be made to
> accept that truth as reality.
> 
> The only way was a death bed confession or dying declaration. 
> Snape would have nothing to gain at the moment of death from 
> lies. Also, we know the Penseive doesn't lie. Memories can be
> altered or blocked out, but they can never be lies; they are 
> fully objective.
> 
> I wondered about this as we were pondering what might happen
> in the final book, and, as far as I was concerned, one of the
> greatest mysteries was how Snape would bring Harry around to
> his way of thinking. I couldn't imagine how that could 
> possibly happen with the animosity between them so great. 
> 
> But, JKR found a way that satisfied everything. She found away
> for Snape to give Harry clear objective truth in a way that 
> Harry would never question. 
> 
> So, I ask, if not this way, then in what way?
> 
> Steve/bboyminn

Leah:  Just adding briefly to the earlier replies to this.  Firstly, 
I don't think it's true that Snape would have nothing to gain from a 
deathbed confession; he would be remembered as a hero rather than 
reviled as a traitor,possibly a posthumous Order of Merlin. 

It's clear from the Elder Wand chapter that Snape does not come to 
the Shack intending to die and make a death bed confession to Harry; 
he doesn't know the boy is there.  He is desperate to get away and 
find Harry, which suggests that he had some idea of how to 
communicate with him.  He has already sent Harry the doe patronus, 
which Harry instinctively trusted and knew was not dark magic, and 
which led Harry to the Sword of Gryffindor.  If Snape could let 
Harry see him casting the doe patronus, and use it to lead him to a 
pensieve, then that would probably have worked.

IMO it was disappointing  not to have got some sort of resolution 
between Harry and a living Snape earlier in the DH story.   It 
couldn't be because JKR wanted the big 'reveal' of Snape's loyalty 
at the end of the book, but I thought unsatisfying.

Leah
       




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jun  5 14:15:43 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:15:43 -0000
Subject: Mourning Snape's life - Objective Truth
In-Reply-To: <g26vkn+qdkb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g28sef+oe0f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183132

 
> Julie:
> That's a problem though. If the only way for Harry to believe
> Snape is a deathbed confession or a dying declaration, then there
> is a plot problem, unless Snape is *expecting* to die (or unless
> *Dumbledore* is expecting Snape to die--which I wouldn't put 
> past him BTW). And even if one or both of them has that expectation,
> it's still pretty chancy to depend on Voldemort to play along
> unwittingly and at the appropriate time (and Harry too...).

<snip>

> I'm sure there would have been other ways too, that involved
> a greater change to the plot. At the very least, and even in 
> DH as it was written, there should have been *some* plan to
> get those memories to Harry, and some back up way to protect
> those memories in case Snape did die prematurely (he was
> playing a very dangerous game all along, after all!).
> 

Pippin:
But Snape's memories aren't the only means by which Harry could have
learned about the accidental horcrux or Snape's true role in
Dumbledore's death. 

In DH, as written, Dumbledore's portrait has the information and could
have given it to Harry if necessary. Of course it's much more
satisfying for the reader  to learn it from Snape's memories, but
Dumbledore did have an obvious way to get the information to Harry if
Snape had failed.

I can understand people wanting Snape to have lived because they like
the character, I certainly do, but his role in the story is not
incomplete, IMO. JKR does the same thing with his story that she does
with the Marauders -- there's a complete arc  but it isn't told all
through one character. 

DH begins with the reconciliation between Harry and Dudley and a
mystery: what could possibly have caused Dudley to have a change of
heart? But the question JKR wants us to think about at the end is what
could cause *anyone* to have a change of heart. She's dealing in
universals, not particulars, and emphasizes this by not telling the
whole story through one person. 

Pippin




 
 




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  5 17:19:25 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:19:25 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
Message-ID: <g2976t+93rj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183133

We've had a recent thread that mourns the passing of Snape. I don't, 
but that led to this query. In the interest of full disclosure, I am 
a Marauder fan and Sirius Black is my favorite character. So I am 
naturally biased towards despising one Severus Snape. OK, now on to 
the show. ;-)

JKR admitted Snape was "a gift of a character", and I'll second that. 
Whatever your leanings I don't see how you could not be entertained 
by the enigma that was Snape. JKR made sure we would all want to know 
where exactly Severus stood and why he stood there, as much as we 
wanted to know what was going to happen to Harry. For some of you, 
maybe more.

In that respect, I too liked Severus Snape. I too wanted to know why 
he was the way he was. I even color myself slightly disappointed that 
his love for Lily was the *only* driving force that propelled him to 
do what he did for Harry and the good side. I wanted to see something 
more. Maybe some of you did see more, if so maybe you could cite some 
canon for your belief? 

For me, I've adapted myself to the Magpie school of interpreting 
canon: if it's not in the book, it didn't happen. Some will say that 
Snape took up Dumbledore's banner not just for Lily, but because he 
had some epiphany about Voldemort. I say I expected that to be part 
of his change, but I didn't see it. Up until the very end, all we 
were shown was that Severus did it all for Lily. The Doe Patronus 
followed by his answer to Dumbledore: "Always"; his keeping Lily's 
signature and tearing her picture from James and Harry to take out of 
12 GP. Do you have some canon that can convince me that Snape had 
some other motivation besides Lily?

But that wasn't my question, was it? ;-) I wanted to know if you 
liked Severus Snape. I don't want to know if you liked having his 
character in the books, I've already said that I liked having Snape 
in the books and I hate the guy. I'm not really asking if you 
sympathize or empathize with him. Heck, I sympathize with the young 
Severus in the playground with Lily, per-Hogwarts. No, what I want to 
know is if you *liked* Severus? 

If you were in the Potterverse, would you be mates with him? If your 
answer is yes, is it unqualified? That is, would you have been mates 
when he was just pre-Hogwarts, during Hogwarts as a student, only 
after he returned to Dumbledore to plea for Lily's life, or do you 
have no qualifications? If your answer is no, are there times in the 
life of Severus Snape that you wouldn't have minded being around him? 
If you wanted to be more than mates with Severus, umm, ... I don't 
want to know! ;-)

Is there any part of his behavior you disliked, abhorred, or just 
thought was a little too over the top?

You see, I'm curious. I could never understand the attraction. I 
guessed, as did practically all of us, that Snape was ultimately on 
the good side. But there were too many things about him for me to get 
past to like him. I didn't take Lupinlore's approach that his 
teaching was child abuse, but I did agree with Alla that it was 
abhorrent behavior. And though I laughed at some of his wittier 
lines, that didn't supplant my dislike for the overall character.

I didn't place most of the blame on him for James's and Lily's 
deaths; in fact I put him third after LV and Pettigrew. But he does 
get some blame there that cannot be expunged in my eyes. That he was 
redeemed for that act, that he spent the rest of his life serving 
penitence for that mistake, does not make me like him for it.

I have a particular revulsion for the Snape in PoA, in the Shreiking 
Shack scene. I've expounded on that enough, I won't continue to bore 
you. Funnily enough, I was most entertained by Snape in PoA, too.

I get that some people identify with Snape, just like lots of people 
identified with Harry and I identified with Sirius. Did that make you 
like Severus, or understand him, or both?

Please, explain to me the attraction!

Mike, who hopes that Carol gets her computer back before all the good 
lines are taken ;-)




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Jun  5 18:42:33 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:42:33 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2976t+93rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g29c2p+d28t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183134

Mike:
> We've had a recent thread that mourns the passing of Snape. I 
don't, 
> but that led to this query. In the interest of full disclosure, I 
am 
> a Marauder fan and Sirius Black is my favorite character. So I am 
> naturally biased towards despising one Severus Snape. OK, now on to 
> the show. ;-)

Magpie:
It's funny...I'm a Marauder fan too and I love Sirius (though at 
least twice I've been accused of hating the guy--I was even once 
asked if he "killed my puppy" or something, this after I thought I 
was being affectionate towards him!), but I like Snape too. There's 
few people in canon that I really dislike--though there are things I 
dislike about a lot of them.

Now, whether I'd be friends with Snape, like him as a person? That's 
a different story. I think I would find him amusing a lot of the 
time. He is smart and can be snarky in ways that are funny. However, 
he's also really embarassing when he's bad. I mean, attacking Harry 
the way he did? That's just squirmingly bad. It's hard to have 
respect. Granted, the same thing is sometimes true about the 
Marauders and others so it's not just Snape. They were just as bad 
picking on him to be cruel.

In the end I felt DH really diminished him as a character because I 
was expecting something more interesting. A lot of things I thought 
would be resolved turned out not to need resolving because the 
question was simple: How could Snape protect Harry and hate him and 
James? He loved Lily. Meanwhile the guy had been given many chances 
to actually redeem himself--and by that I don't just mean do the 
right thing and make up for his mistake (which he did) but turn 
around and become a better person, and he rejected them in favor of 
staying in the same place he was when he was 12. I think he got a raw 
deal from Dumbledore too, but you can see why he'd be able to be 
played that way. He could have had more.

I don't think you'd get much out of liking him except in a casual way 
because he was determined that nobody else was Lily. That's one of 
the sad things about the story for me. I feel sorry for the way he 
created so much of his own misery, but I don't identify with him, 
exactly. Well, I do in certain instances but not in the way some 
readers do, where Snape is more of a tragic hero. I can empathize 
with him in what are for him the worst moments--I understand why he 
called Lily a Mudblood (though it's still a bigoted comment--I don't 
agree with his just being angry making it not bigotry), I understand 
why he joined the DEs. I liked him a lot when I thought there was 
more of a transformation. I suspect if I knew him in real life I 
might still like him--he's very talented, he can be very funny, he 
was a bad ass spy and very competent and he was no longer a believer 
in Voldemort's policies so there's a lot to like there. But 
unfortunately he has to compete with the guy I thought he was for the 
first six books and he can't.

-m




From secretwindow-jd1 at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jun  5 17:33:08 2008
From: secretwindow-jd1 at sbcglobal.net (maria)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2976t+93rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <908122.75009.qm@web83007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183135

> Mike wrote:

> If you were in the Potterverse, would you be mates with him?
> <snip> 
> are there times in the life of Severus Snape that you wouldn't
> have minded being around him? 


I like Snape! Ever since the begining I was conviced he was good. I always thought if Dumbledore likes him and without a doubt go to bat for him then he knows something about Snape's inner person. Snape must have proved himself to Dumbledore without a question where his loyalty lies. Does it say what ever happened between them that Dumbledore likes him so?? 

It seemed there were quite a bit of times where I had my doubts about him. He covered himself up really good, but he always protected the kids(actions spoke louder than his words). It really broke my heart when he died, but I know Harry finally saw the real Snape and he appreciated him at the end. As for me liking him if I was a student, I think I would, I didnt think he was that bad and he sure knew what he was doing! If I was a teacher yes, I would have loved to hang out with him. 

I think all that happened to him as a student in Hogwarts made him who he is. He is gaurded and he protects himself, but I think he would let his guard down if he had to. He was my absoulute favorite in the books and the movies!                           


  Maria



From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jun  5 20:42:54 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:42:54 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2976t+93rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g29j4e+1lkf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183136

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
 
> In that respect, I too liked Severus Snape. I too wanted to know why 
> he was the way he was. I even color myself slightly disappointed
that  his love for Lily was the *only* driving force that propelled
him to  do what he did for Harry and the good side. I wanted to see
something  more. Maybe some of you did see more, if so maybe you could
cite some  canon for your belief? 

Pippin:
The introductory speech to the potions class. Gripping the back of a
chair when Ginny was taken. Making the wolfsbane potion perfectly
month after month for Lupin. Conjuring a stretcher for Sirius. Showing
his dark mark to Fudge. Pushing his potions classes to achieve a high
pass rate. Pledging his life to protect Draco. Healing Katy Bell.
Saving Lupin. Sending Ginny to Hagrid. Objecting to Phineas saying
'mudblood.' 

Those do not seem to me to be the actions of someone who is just going
through the motions of being on the good side, or solely concerned
with keeping Harry alive for Lily's sake. 

I don't think Snape had any grand  Dumbledorean hopes  of making the
WW a better place. To his mind it was a cruel world and would remain
so, whether Voldemort  stood or fell. And he was always going to think
Harry James Potter was a waste of space. But there were definitely
things he cared about other than Lily.

There seem to be people in canon  who liked Snape as an adult-- Hagrid
always sticks up for him, and the worst thing that Ginny can find to
say is that Bill doesn't like him, which always struck me as praising
with faint damns. So I think it was perfectly possible to like Snape,
provided that you had a thick skin and a tolerance for interestin'
creatures. If I were allowed to equip my fictional self with those
things, I think I'd like Snape just fine. 

Pippin





From leahstill at hotmail.com  Thu Jun  5 21:15:04 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:15:04 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2976t+93rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g29l0o+luic@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183137

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> We've had a recent thread that mourns the passing of Snape. I 
don't, 
> but that led to this query. In the interest of full disclosure, I 
am 
> a Marauder fan and Sirius Black is my favorite character. So I am 
> naturally biased towards despising one Severus Snape. OK, now on 
to 
> the show. ;-) 

Leah: In the interests of full disclosure I am not a Marauders fan.
 
> 
> In that respect, I too liked Severus Snape. I too wanted to know 
why 
> he was the way he was. I even color myself slightly disappointed 
that 
> his love for Lily was the *only* driving force that propelled him 
to 
> do what he did for Harry and the good side. I wanted to see 
something 
> more. Maybe some of you did see more, if so maybe you could cite 
some 
> canon for your belief? 

Leah:

Things I can think of off the top of my head not related to Lily:

Attempting to save Lupin's life during the seven Potters chase 
(against DD's orders not to risk a break in cover)

Saving Neville from being crushed by Crabbe in Umbridge's office

Agreeing to kill Dumbledore (doesn't help Harry, and makes Snape 
into a reviled traitor)

Taking the Unbreakable Vow to try to save Draco Malfoy (yes he's 
going to kill DD anyway, but he doesn't have to put his life on the 
line for a year in the process).

Saving those he could from Voldemort as he says in response to DD's 
question re watching people die.

Giving Ginny and co detention with Hagrid;in fact becoming 
hesdmaster of Hogwarts for what must have been a terrible year in 
the hope of being able to give some protection to the students.    

> 
> For me, I've adapted myself to the Magpie school of interpreting 
> canon: if it's not in the book, it didn't happen. Some will say 
that 
> Snape took up Dumbledore's banner not just for Lily, but because 
he 
> had some epiphany about Voldemort. I say I expected that to be 
part 
> of his change, but I didn't see it. Up until the very end, all we 
> were shown was that Severus did it all for Lily. The Doe Patronus 
> followed by his answer to Dumbledore: "Always"; his keeping Lily's 
> signature and tearing her picture from James and Harry to take out 
of 
> 12 GP. Do you have some canon that can convince me that Snape had 
> some other motivation besides Lily?

Leah:
I think the doe patronus is partly 'getting at' Dumbledore.  
Dumbledore has just told him Harry, whom Snape thought he was saving 
for years, is in fact just a sacrifice waiting its time.  I think it 
could be a 'who cares about the greater good, old man, this is what 
I'm in it for' regardless of whether that is actually true or not.

I have to ask though, if Snape did do it all for Lily, so what?  Is 
a right action only right if you do it for a truly noble reason? 
Would a pilot who had no interest in politics, but who fought in the 
Battle of Britain because his wife had been had been killed by a 
German bomb, be any less brave or have done any less to defeat 
Hitler, than a pilot who joined up because he wanted to be part of 
the fight against facism?  

Dumbledore fights for 'the greater good' partly because of his past -
 Arianna and Grindelwald.  Molly's brothers were killed by 
Deatheaters.  Sirius escapes from Azkaban because James' son is in 
danger. Narcissa betrays Voldemort to save her son. Regulus takes 
the horcrux because of the way Voldemort treated Kreacher.  Even 
Harry says he wants Voldemort dead 'because he killed my mum and 
dad'.  Why does Snape have to meet a higher standard of nobility and 
selfless action? 

I think part of the problem is that Snape is one of those characters 
who grew beyond the author's intent and control.  By the end of HBP, 
even if you didn't like Snape, he was a force to be reckoned with 
and so readers wanted there to be some great reason around him being 
DD's man Then because in the end everything hinged around Snape's 
request to Voldemort and Lily's choice, in DH he had to be forced 
back into a mould he had long broken, hence the frustration with the 
Lily focus which really seems out of character for the Snape we had 
come to know.

> But that wasn't my question, was it? ;-) I wanted to know if you 
> liked Severus Snape.

Leah:
Yes, very much.

 > If you were in the Potterverse, would you be mates with him? If 
your 
> answer is yes, is it unqualified? That is, would you have been 
mates 
> when he was just pre-Hogwarts, during Hogwarts as a student, only 
> after he returned to Dumbledore to plea for Lily's life, or do you 
> have no qualifications? If your answer is no, are there times in 
the 
> life of Severus Snape that you wouldn't have minded being around 
him? 
> If you wanted to be more than mates with Severus, umm, ... I don't 
> want to know! ;-)

'Mates' is a word for blokes isn't it?  Sorry, it conjures up for me 
beer-drinking sessions and going to watch the match together.  I 
would have beem quite happy to be Severus' friend, pre-Hogwarts, at 
Hogwarts and afterwards.  As to the Deatheating period, that would 
depend on what he thought he was getting himself into and why, and 
whether he could be persuaded out of it by a proper friend.  

I suspect I'm approaching the question slightly backwards. I don't 
read the books and think 'would I like to be friends with Snape?', I 
like Snape because he is the sort of person I like in the real 
world - darkly funny, snide, intelligent, good at what he does, 
protective. 



> 
> Is there any part of his behavior you disliked, abhorred, or just 
> thought was a little too over the top?

Leah:
He can be extremely petty and vindictive. But, sadly, funny at the 
same time.
  
> You see, I'm curious. I could never understand the attraction. I 
> guessed, as did practically all of us, that Snape was ultimately 
on 
> the good side. But there were too many things about him for me to 
get 
> past to like him. I didn't take Lupinlore's approach that his 
> teaching was child abuse, but I did agree with Alla that it was 
> abhorrent behavior. And though I laughed at some of his wittier 
> lines, that didn't supplant my dislike for the overall character.

Leah:
His teaching really didn't bother me that much, though there were 
clearly some occasions when he was OTT.  When I first encountered 
Snape, I thought immediately of my old geography teacher.  There 
were a lot of teachers around when I was at school who used sarcasm 
etc as a teaching tool, and of course we only ever see the Harry 
filter. I had ones who were a lot more unpleasant than Snape, and 
did not teach as effectively as he obviously does in general (see 
Umbridge's comments)  As I got progressively more irritated by Harry 
as the series progressed, it was hard to be too down on Snape.   



 
> I didn't place most of the blame on him for James's and Lily's 
> deaths; in fact I put him third after LV and Pettigrew. But he 
does 
> get some blame there that cannot be expunged in my eyes. That he 
was 
> redeemed for that act, that he spent the rest of his life serving 
> penitence for that mistake, does not make me like him for it.

He can be blamed for becoming a Death Eater, but once he's become 
one, taking the prophecy to Voldemort is what he ought to have 
done.  There seems to be a feeling that Snape should have had some 
sort of epiphany about the prophecy as opposed to anything else he 
did in Voldemort's service. In my view, taking a scrap of rather 
dubious prose, which could mean any number of things, if it means 
anything at all, to the only person actually identified in it, ranks 
a long way behind knowingly betraying your friends and their child 
to death, and actually killing two defenceless people and attempting 
to kill a baby. By the way, where does Dumbledore, who let Snape 
leave Hogsmeade with that scrap of prophesy, rate in the blame 
stakes?   


> I have a particular revulsion for the Snape in PoA, in the 
Shreiking 
> Shack scene. I've expounded on that enough, I won't continue to 
bore 
> you. Funnily enough, I was most entertained by Snape in PoA, too.

I just don't understand what is objectionable about Snape in the 
Shrieking Shack.  To save some children who have put themselves into 
danger, he rushes to a place where he was nearly killed by a 
werewolf, to face both the man who is going to transform into the 
werewolf in question, and a man Snape believes to be a loyal Death 
Eater and a mass murderer.  That is an extremely brave act. Yes, he 
should have listened to what was being said,and not let his emotions 
get the better of him but neither Black nor Lupin, who should have 
been talking to him in an adult way,  were helping, saying that 
Snape 'deserved' the Prank and that the joke was on him again.     

> 
> I get that some people identify with Snape, just like lots of 
people 
> identified with Harry and I identified with Sirius. Did that make 
you 
> like Severus, or understand him, or both?

I don't think I identify with him, i just like him.  I certainly 
wouldn't have given up my life for someone who chucked me over for 
my worst enemy, so DH Snape is probably a more loyal and better 
person than I am.  

Leah






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  5 22:53:35 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:53:35 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g29j4e+1lkf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g29qpf+8u9j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183138

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

> There seem to be people in canon  who liked Snape as an adult-- Hagrid
> always sticks up for him, and the worst thing that Ginny can find to
> say is that Bill doesn't like him, which always struck me as praising
> with faint damns.


zanooda: 

Yes, I also thought that Ginny just didn't find anything bad to say 
about Snape herself, so she brought Bill into it :-). I bet Snape was 
not that horrible to Ginny. Slughorn had a soft spot for her because 
she reminded him of Lily - could be the same story with Snape :-).







From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  5 22:59:09 2008
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:59:09 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2976t+93rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g29r3t+lcvp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183139

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> We've had a recent thread that mourns the passing of Snape. I 
don't, 
> but that led to this query. In the interest of full disclosure, I 
am 
> a Marauder fan and Sirius Black is my favorite character. So I am 
> naturally biased towards despising one Severus Snape. OK, now on to 
> the show. ;-)
> 
> JKR admitted Snape was "a gift of a character", and I'll second 
that. 
> Whatever your leanings I don't see how you could not be entertained 
> by the enigma that was Snape. JKR made sure we would all want to 
know 
> where exactly Severus stood and why he stood there, as much as we 
> wanted to know what was going to happen to Harry. For some of you, 
> maybe more.


Jack-A-Roe:
I believe that Snape was probably the most interesting character in 
the series. In fact there wouldn't have been a series if not for his 
dubious actions.

But like him, not a chance. He isn't some tragic character that fate 
decided to mess with, that was Harry. 

As a child we see that he is already prejudiced against muggles, but 
not muggle borns. He is not friendly to Petunia at all. We find out 
that he recognized a letter she got from Hogwarts and he read it. 

We see in his dicussions with Lilly that he is hanging around with a 
poor choice in friends. She calls what they did as dark and he 
immediately rationalizes that James, Sirius, etc also play pranks. He 
is intentionally trying to compare apples and oranges.

He is so vindictive that he tries to follow the marauders. Does he 
believe that Dumbledore doesn't know about there being a werewolf in 
school? No, he is simply trying to get them in trouble while making 
himself look good. Unfortunately for him, Sirius sets him up. 
Fortunately for him James rescues him.

We see that he's now become predjudiced against muggle borns even 
calling his friend a mudblood. He doesn't even deny calling others by 
that name nor that he and his friends are junior deatheaters.

He joins the deatheaters and commits murder. It's ok if you kill 
other people as long as they aren't someone you know. It's not until 
Lilly is threatened does start to think this is wrong. He is lucky 
that Dumbledore manipulated him into trying to do good. On his own I 
don't think he would have made it.

People who complain about the marauders picking on him, glance over 
the fact that it was student to student. When Harry comes to school, 
Snape is the biggest bully on the block and he's a teacher. He starts 
in on Harry the first day of class and doesn't let up. Reading the 
paper in class and embarrassing Harry/Hermione is much worse than 
being flipped upside down and having your underwear show.

In the end, Snape is saved from failing his mission because Harry 
decided to check on him. Personally if I was Harry I would have 
kicked him in the balls and spit in his face.

If I was in Potterverse, I wouldn't have liked Snape (even with his 
dry sarcasm) and would have been friends with the marauders.







From pdshelgren at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  5 20:51:40 2008
From: pdshelgren at yahoo.com (Paula Shelgren)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
Message-ID: <210551.71966.qm@web51402.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183140

I always liked Snape. I felt he got dealt with a bad start
in life. Kids teasing him and such. But he kept his word to
Dumbledore to protect Harry and he kept it. I was upset when
he died, it should have been Lucius Malfoy or even Draco but
not Snape.

Paula Shelgren



From sweenlit at gmail.com  Thu Jun  5 23:55:23 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:55:23 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and Hermione: Queries about their friendship
In-Reply-To: <g25u84+qiah@eGroups.com>
References: <g25u84+qiah@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806051655h15ca761y6ce0c6950d39fe3e@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183141

Harry is a typical male. He has problems expressing his feelings (especially
of friendship) for a girl.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  6 00:26:02 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:26:02 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g29r3t+lcvp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2a06q+kq56@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183142

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jkoney65" <jkoney65 at ...> wrote:

> He joins the deatheaters and commits murder. It's ok if you kill 
> other people as long as they aren't someone you know. 


Just out of curiosity, how do you know that Snape committed murder?
Did I miss something in the book or is it just your guess :-)? You
seem so sure ...


zanooda




From leahstill at hotmail.com  Fri Jun  6 00:26:32 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:26:32 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g29r3t+lcvp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2a07o+iegn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183143

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jkoney65" <jkoney65 at ...> 
wrote:
> Jack-A-Roe:
> I believe that Snape was probably the most interesting character 
in 
> the series. In fact there wouldn't have been a series if not for 
his 
> dubious actions.
> 
> But like him, not a chance. He isn't some tragic character that 
fate 
> decided to mess with, that was Harry. 
> 
> As a child we see that he is already prejudiced against muggles, 
but 
> not muggle borns. He is not friendly to Petunia at all. We find 
out 
> that he recognized a letter she got from Hogwarts and he read it. 

Leah: He is a wizarding child growing up in the Muggle world.  He 
meets another child who is a witch. This is like a child who is very 
musical but has lived with people who are tone-deaf suddenly meeting 
someone who shares his talent.  There is no reason for him to be 
interested in Petunia, and he is not helped by the fact that his 
Muggle father appears to be unpleasant.  Petunia sneers at his home 
and at his 'mum's blouse'.  The reading of the letter was also done 
by the sainted Lily.
> 
> We see in his dicussions with Lilly that he is hanging around with 
a 
> poor choice in friends. She calls what they did as dark and he 
> immediately rationalizes that James, Sirius, etc also play pranks. 
He 
> is intentionally trying to compare apples and oranges.


He hangs aroound with people from his house, like everyone in the 
Potterverse.  As we have no idea what Mulciber and Avery were up to, 
we don't know if we are comparing apples and oranges or melons and 
plums.  He is not immediately rationalising, he is trying to tell 
Lily that James and Sirius (does etc emcompass the delightful 
Pettigrew, who's not dark at all?)run with a werewolf.  We know that 
they take this werewolf out of safekeeping and around the local 
village, where they have had a number of 'near misses' ie the 
werewolf has come near to encountering another person. As for 
other 'pranks' - having your head swelled to twice its normal size 
may not have been dark magic, but it can't have been much fun.  It's 
also all good clean fun to choke someone with soapsuds while you 
have rendered them totally immobile, for merely existing.  And 
anyone in a Muggle school who threatened to (and for all we know) 
actually did strip a fellow pupil in public would certainly be 
suspended from school at the least. Oh, and not to mention setting 
them up to be eaten or transformed by a werewolf.  Still, boys will 
be boys.        

> 
> He is so vindictive that he tries to follow the marauders. Does he 
> believe that Dumbledore doesn't know about there being a werewolf 
in 
> school? No, he is simply trying to get them in trouble while 
making 
> himself look good. Unfortunately for him, Sirius sets him up. 
> Fortunately for him James rescues him.

Leah: He does know that the staff know about Lupin because he has 
seen Madam Pomfrey take him to the Willow.  Therefore he is not 
interested in proving Lupin to be a werewolf to the staff. He may 
well be interested in proving to Lily that Lupin is a werewolf.  If 
he is interested in showing that the Maruaders muck around with a 
transformed werewolf, then this not something DD knows, and which he 
ought to be told (see above). Yes, setting up someone to be murdered 
for being nosy is a bit unfortunate. 



> 
> We see that he's now become predjudiced against muggle borns even 
> calling his friend a mudblood. He doesn't even deny calling others 
by 
> that name nor that he and his friends are junior deatheaters.

He calls her a mudblood in a moment of fury and humiliation, while 
she, his supposed best friend, flirts with his tormentor.  We don't 
know that he is actually prejudiced against muggleborns just that he 
uses the term which is current in his house.  Yes that is a 
weakness, but to defy the others would no doubt mean being beaten up 
by the Slytherins as well as the Gryffindors- and might put Lily in 
danger of retaliation. We don't know what Snape is going to say 
about all this, because Lily cuts him off while he struggles on the 
verge of speech.

> 
> He joins the deatheaters 

Leah: Yes

and commits murder. It's ok if you kill 
> other people as long as they aren't someone you know. 

Where is the canon evidence for Snape having committed murder, 
please?  His question to Dumbledore about splitting his soul and 
Dumbledore's question on how many Snape has watched die, suggest 
that he has not killed personally, (although he must have been 
present at killings)
It's not until 
> Lilly is threatened does start to think this is wrong. He is lucky 
> that Dumbledore manipulated him into trying to do good. On his own 
I 
> don't think he would have made it.

Actually, Dumbledore manipulated Snape into becoming his very 
talented spy and right hand man for sorting out threats at 
Hogwarts.  Dumbledore does not ask Snape what he can do to make 
reparation to anyone he might have harmed, or to the world in 
general, which would have been perfectly acceptable and right.  He 
asks Snape 'What will you give me in exchange?'  Dumbledore wants 
Snape to protect Harry, so Harry can die at the right time.  Snape 
may loathe Harry, but he protects Harry so Harry can live. It is 
nothing to do with Dumbledore that Snapes saves those whom he can 
from Voldemort, or tries to save Lupin against Dumbledore's specific 
orders.  In the end, Snape is the better man.   


> 
> People who complain about the marauders picking on him, glance 
over 
> the fact that it was student to student. 

No, actually, as Snape points out it was four students to student, 
and those four were armed with a map and an invisibility cloak which 
must have helped their strike rate.


When Harry comes to school, 
> Snape is the biggest bully on the block and he's a teacher. 

He starts 
> in on Harry the first day of class and doesn't let up. Reading the 
> paper in class and embarrassing Harry/Hermione is much worse than 
> being flipped upside down and having your underwear show.

Snape can be petty and vindictive towards Harry, eg the 'new 
celebrity' comment.  However, he is perfectly entitled to ask Harry 
questions which are obviously answerable by a fair few of the class, 
including Muggleborn Hermione.  Harry is cheeky in return.  We only 
ever see Snape in class with Harry, therefore we don't know what he 
is like with other classes.  We do see him being protective of the 
children in general.  As to Harry's potions class, it must be a 
nightmare for Snape.  He has four children who are the sons of 
marked Deatheaters, and Malfoy at least will be reporting back on 
what is going on.  He also has the Chosen One, and the DE children 
will not expect to see him purring round Harry.  Harry himself looks 
like Snape's enemy, with his eyes constantly reminding Snape that 
his beloved married this enemy.  He tries to tell something of this 
to Dumbledore who reads a magazine. In addition, Snape has an 
attention seeking  Muggleborn who is continually doing what he tells 
her not to do, and Neville who is actually a dangerous liability in 
a class full of volatile substances.  Snape is hardly likely to be 
at his best.   However, his nastiest actions towards the trio, 
including the newspaper reading (which doesn't seem to give Harry 
any lasting trauma) usually follow some rule-breaking, theft etc etc 
for which they are not otherwise punished. So it is childish, but 
does not come out of the blue.        



> 
> In the end, Snape is saved from failing his mission because Harry 
> decided to check on him. Personally if I was Harry I would have 
> kicked him in the balls and spit in his face.

It is not Snape's fault that Dumbledore set the mission up in such a 
stupid way. Snape could have told Voldemort that he was not the one 
who disarmed Dumbledore, and no doubt Voldemort would have then 
spared this valuable servant.  Instead, Snape dies, saving Draco, 
and sending Voldemort to battle against Harry withouy mastery of the 
Elder Wand.  An action clearly deserving of a good kick. Had Harry 
done as you so charmingly suggest, then he would not have known what 
to do, and Voldemort might well have triumphed. 



> 
> If I was in Potterverse, I wouldn't have liked Snape (even with 
his 
> dry sarcasm) and would have been friends with the marauders.

I think you would have got on well with them.

Leah
>





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  6 00:35:14 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:35:14 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2976t+93rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2a0o2+pg29@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183144

Mike:
> JKR admitted Snape was "a gift of a character", and I'll second that. 
> Whatever your leanings I don't see how you could not be entertained 
> by the enigma that was Snape. JKR made sure we would all want to know 
> where exactly Severus stood and why he stood there, as much as we 
> wanted to know what was going to happen to Harry. For some of you, 
> maybe more.

Montavilla47:
More.  But then, for me, it was quite obvious what was going to 
happen to Harry.  He was going to have a hard time destroying
the Horcruxes and then he was going to vanquish Voldemort.  The
only question about all that was how.

I was also pretty sure where Snape stood--the why was a bit more
of a question.  But, I never thought for a moment that he wasn't
Dumbledore's man.  

Of course, I'm an adult (not to say that people who dislike Snape
are children).  As an adult, I go into PS/SS knowing that snarky does
not equal evil, or greedy, or disloyal.  So, I never fell into that 
line of thinking with him.

And, in GoF, when we find out that Snape was a Death Eater,
I already had enough knowledge of the world to know that people
may espouse ideas in their youth that they don't in their later
years.

As Pippin might point out, JKR shows us that through the 
storyline of Hermione and the Elves.  As a fifteen-year-old, she
holds a rather rigid political view of slavery.  Her view becomes
more nuanced when she reaches the more mature age of 
seventeen and eighteen.

Mike:
> In that respect, I too liked Severus Snape. I too wanted to know why 
> he was the way he was. I even color myself slightly disappointed that 
> his love for Lily was the *only* driving force that propelled him to 
> do what he did for Harry and the good side. I wanted to see something 
> more. Maybe some of you did see more, if so maybe you could cite some 
> canon for your belief?

Montavilla47:
I don't have such a negative view of Lily love being the *only* known
driving force.  It wasn't negative before DH, anyway.  And the only
reason it's unpalatable to me now is because he simply wasn't a 
very attractive sweetheart.  Which, come to think of, JKR warned us
about.  ("That's a very horrible thought.  Who would want to be in 
love with him?")

No, he's most unattractive, with the hungry eyes and open-mouthed,
panting intensity.  Too needy.  Too clingy.  If you are going to invest
in a ship, you sort of want the lovers to have chemistry.

And Lily with him was just as unappealing.  Can you imagine them
day to day?  "I've been defending you for years!  My friends all say
you don't take out the garbage enough!  If you really loved me, 
you'd wouldn't complain about picking up my feminine hygene
products!"

I had imagined that Snape would be in love with Lily, but shy, 
thinking he wasn't good enough for her.  Little did I know how
much she'd agree with him about that!

Oh, but that wasn't your question, was it?  You wanted to know
if there was more than Lily love driving him in canon.

I think so.  Someone else pointed out the clue where he seems
genuinely protective of other students.  I sensed a friendliness
between him and McGonagall that was almost affectionate.  (He
may be making a horrible face when he shakes her hand in PS/SS,
but he is shaking her hand.  When she returns in OotP, he greets
her enthusiastically.)

He does have some kind of relationship with the Malfoys, pre-DH.
(In DH, they might as well be strangers.)  He smiles when Draco
suggests talking to his father about making Snape headmaster.
He gives Draco the idea for that cool snake spell in CoS.  Draco
runs to him for help with Montague in OotP, and Snape interrupts
fights between Draco and Harry in both GoF and OotP.  

He has some odd reaction when Harry talks about Lucius showing
up in the graveyard.  He doesn't react to the other names, although
they are also the fathers of his students.

And, of course, he agrees to make an Unbreakable Vow to watch 
over, protect, and finish Draco's mission if necessary.

As we can see by the end of the series, Voldemort didn't just
kill Lily.  His return threatened everything the Malfoys had built
since his disappearance.  He took away Lucius's reputation, his
power, and his freedom.  He tried to destroy Lucius's son.  

I think that was part of the reason Snape worked against
Voldemort--although it was a difficult maneuver, since 
working against Voldemort also meant working against
Lucius.

Mike:
> For me, I've adapted myself to the Magpie school of interpreting 
> canon: if it's not in the book, it didn't happen. Some will say that 
> Snape took up Dumbledore's banner not just for Lily, but because he 
> had some epiphany about Voldemort. I say I expected that to be part 
> of his change, but I didn't see it. Up until the very end, all we 
> were shown was that Severus did it all for Lily. The Doe Patronus 
> followed by his answer to Dumbledore: "Always"; his keeping Lily's 
> signature and tearing her picture from James and Harry to take out of 
> 12 GP. Do you have some canon that can convince me that Snape had 
> some other motivation besides Lily?

Montavilla47:
See above.  But I'll agree that we don't see any epiphany.  More like
the opposite.... what is the opposite of an epiphany?  I mean,
the closest thing we see is Snape's depression after Lily's death
 and Dumbledore's shifting Snape's focus onto Harry.  

But you do want to see Snape GET it at a certain point, and
we never see that point.  What we get instead are those 
glimpses of that horrible Dumbledore-Snape relationship in 
which we get hints that Snape did get it--but never really
when or how.

Mike:
> But that wasn't my question, was it? ;-) I wanted to know if you 
> liked Severus Snape. I don't want to know if you liked having his 
> character in the books, I've already said that I liked having Snape 
> in the books and I hate the guy. I'm not really asking if you 
> sympathize or empathize with him. Heck, I sympathize with the young 
> Severus in the playground with Lily, per-Hogwarts. No, what I want to 
> know is if you *liked* Severus? 

Montavilla47:
Yes.  The more I saw of him, the more I liked him, whether it was as an
adult, a teen, or a child. 

Mike:
> If you were in the Potterverse, would you be mates with him? If your 
> answer is yes, is it unqualified? That is, would you have been mates 
> when he was just pre-Hogwarts, during Hogwarts as a student, only 
> after he returned to Dumbledore to plea for Lily's life, or do you 
> have no qualifications? If your answer is no, are there times in the 
> life of Severus Snape that you wouldn't have minded being around him? 
> If you wanted to be more than mates with Severus, umm, ... I don't 
> want to know! ;-)

Montavilla47:
I don't think it would have been up to me as to whether I would have
been mates with him.  I think I would have liked him as far as I knew
him.  I would probably have been sorted into Hufflepuff.  We like 
everyone. 

He's not a person who is going to be immediately attractive.  He's
the kind of person you have to make an effort to know before you
get to see any of his good points.  

Had I been given the opportunity to work on projects with him--
like being paired in a class, I think I would have noticed and liked
his work ethic, creativity, and general snarkiness (which, 
presumably would have been directed at someone other than me.)

Had I been close to him, though, I think I would have been 
disturbed by his friends--much like Lily was.  However, I think 
I would have had more sympathy with his situation and I would 
have tried to handle him differently than she did.  And no,
I don't blame her for dropping him.  I respect her choice.

Mike: 
> Is there any part of his behavior you disliked, abhorred, or just 
> thought was a little too over the top?

Montavilla47:
I didn't like him bullying Neville--not because it was so 
outrageously mean.  It was only rageously mean.  I didn't like it 
because it wasn't an effective teaching method for Neville.  

I thought the "no difference" remark to Hermione was uncalled
for and unprofessional.  

I didn't much care for his handling of Harry in the first day
of Potions class.  Again, it was uncalled for.  

However, I have no complaints to make about his handling
of Harry on any other occasion.  He wasn't always right about
Harry (for example, Harry didn't steal the gillyweed), but he 
was right more often than he was wrong.

Mike:
> I didn't place most of the blame on him for James's and Lily's 
> deaths; in fact I put him third after LV and Pettigrew. But he does 
> get some blame there that cannot be expunged in my eyes. That he was 
> redeemed for that act, that he spent the rest of his life serving 
> penitence for that mistake, does not make me like him for it.

Montavilla47:
I want to build on something that Leah said in a later post. She 
said she didn't see why people think Snape should have had an
epiphany upon hearing the prophecy.

I agree with her.  I was thinking about this the other day and it
occurred to me that, had it not been Voldemort he took the 
Prophecy to, we wouldn't be talking about it at all.

In HBP, Harry overhears something that causes him to think
that there's a threat against Dumbledore.  He goes to Dumbledore
at the first opportunity and tells him everything he knows about 
that threat, never once considering what that might mean to 
the person (Draco) that he's telling on.  Why should he consider
Draco?  He shouldn't.  

In both cases, the consequence of telling about the
threat was similar--someone's family getting killed.  But, even
if Harry knew that Draco's family was being threatened, 
he still would have told Dumbledore.






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  6 02:42:54 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:42:54 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g29j4e+1lkf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2a87e+uk6m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183145

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183136
> 
> Pippin:
> <snip examples>
> 
> Those do not seem to me to be the actions of someone who is just
> going through the motions of being on the good side, or solely
> concerned with keeping Harry alive for Lily's sake.

Mike:

I'm sorry for being so vague in my question. I was looking for 
another impetus that may have caused Snape to have a change of heart. 
Something besides Lily's impending doom. Your examples showed that 
Snape was a decent human being that cared for the sanctity of life; 
he was concerned for all people. But I don't see him changing from 
some callous youth into this person. I have no indication he was 
somehow different before the prophecy and the Lily dilemma.

Along with my belief that Snape was really on the good side comes a 
conviction that Snape wasn't an evil person. That is, Snape was 
basically an upstanding member of the wizarding community. One that 
had his faults and foibles like all the rest. IOW, he wasn't a Death 
Eater at heart. This, of course, makes his decision to join the DEs 
all the more confounding.

I suspect that Voldemort was still in his charming, recruitment mode 
when Severus became enamored with the idea. Yet the name alone, Death 
Eaters, should have been a large enough red flag to warn off a person 
of Severus's intelligence. Another enigma that we won't ever get 
solved.

Back to my point: I didn't expect to find that Snape had joined the 
Death Eaters. And when I found out he had, I still thought he must 
have been different from the typical DEs, that he must have joined 
through some kind of deception. So all those examples you pointed 
out, I would have expected nothing less from someone I was sure was 
on Dumbledore's side, someone that Dumbledore would vouch for. They 
don't look like something done above and beyond the call of duty for 
a true OotP member, which he was.

But, he came back to the good side because of Lily. Once there, he 
acted like anyone would act that had pledged his allegiance to 
Dumbledore and his mission. I don't think those actions would have 
changed had the prophecy never happened, it's just that Snape 
wouldn't have been around to have done them. 

I'm wading into some speculation waters here, but I think Snape would 
have been the same decent human being even as a DE. I think even 
without the prophecy and Lily, eventually something would have 
impelled Snape back to the side of good. But did you see anything 
like that in the story, anything besides Lily that caused Snape to 
return?


> Pippin: 
> 
> I don't think Snape had any grand Dumbledorean hopes of making
> the WW a better place. To his mind it was a cruel world and would
> remain so, whether Voldemort stood or fell. And he was always
> going to think Harry James Potter was a waste of space. But there
> were definitely things he cared about other than Lily.


Mike:

I'm with you here. Though I do think some of what Dumbledore stood 
for rubbed off on Severus over the years. I take him for his worded 
when he said " *Lately*, only those ..." Before his "lately" do you 
suppose he just stood by when he could have done something?

Speculating again; I think it was a matter of degrees. In the past, 
he probably didn't raise a finger to save another DE, as he likewise 
wouldn't have stopped what he was doing to save Sirius Black. But he 
would have saved an innocent if it was within his power to do so. In 
his later days, I think he would have saved both the DE and Sirius.

JMO,
Mike





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  6 04:11:59 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:11:59 -0000
Subject: timetable problem
In-Reply-To: <000601c8c458$e3a29bb0$77ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1>
Message-ID: <g2adef+kbj0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183146

Jerri wrote:
> <snip>
> We know that she [Umbridge] inspected several classes when Harry was
present, but as I recall she did Flitwick when the twins were in
class, and Harry and readers learned about it from her.  I can't see
her just 
> inspecting classes when Harry happened to be in the class.
> 
> There are other places in the book that caused me to feel that she had 
> more on her schedule that would fit.  But this was the straw that got 
> me.

Carol responds:
I always thought that JKR manipulated Umbridge's schedule so that
Harry (and therefore the reader) could witness the inspections that
would prove most important or most interesting: Snape's and
McGonagall's because both Harry and the reader would want to witness
them; Trelawney's and Hagrid's because those two were the weakest
teachers and most in danger. (We also got to see Grubbly-Plank's
because it was at the same time as Hagrid's and made an interesting
comparison. Apparently, Umbridge did actually recognize G-P's
competence (but, of course, she had no stake in going after her, either).

In contrast, we don't need to see Flitwick's or Sprout's or Binns's
(if she even bothered to inspect a ghost) or any of the classes that
Hermione took but Harry didn't. Still, to have Umbridge's schedule
overlap Harry's for four of the six or seven classes he's taking (I
suppose we should include Astronomy though we never see a single
Astronomy lesson) seems forced, a mere convenience related to the PoV
of the novel. It would have been more realistic, though less fun, to
omit Snape's or McGonagall's inspection.

But for Umbridge to have enough free periods to inspect more than two
or three of her fellow teachers (without providing a substitute for
her own students) is unrealistic in the first place. At least some of
the teachers will have the same periods free that she does, and she'd
need to spend the time she spends in Hagrid's and Trelawney's
classrooms inspecting someone else.

Oh, well. Maybe JKR didn't think we'd notice, but I thought that it
was done for her convenience from the first time I read it.

Carol, glad to have her computer back and very much behind on posting
and everything else




From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Fri Jun  6 05:50:54 2008
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 01:50:54 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did you LIKE Snape?
Message-ID: <be5.31e94c44.357a2a3e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183147

     
 
 
Maria:

I like Snape! Ever since the begining I was conviced he was good.  I always 
thought if Dumbledore likes him and without a doubt go to bat  for him then he 
knows something about Snape's inner person. Snape must  have proved himself to 
Dumbledore without a question where his loyalty  lies. Does it say what ever 
happened between them that Dumbledore likes  him so?? 



Sandy:
 
I don't think Dumbledore *liked* Snape - ever. He certainly  trusted him, he 
may have respected his bravery and talent, but I seriously  doubt that he 
liked him. Dumbledore took advantage of Snape's one weakness  and used it as a 
means to an end. He was a tool to Dumbledore; nothing  more. All my opinion of 
course.
 
Sandy





**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with 
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.      
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&NCID=aolfod00030000000002)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From leahstill at hotmail.com  Fri Jun  6 09:15:27 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:15:27 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2a87e+uk6m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2av7f+r3i5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183148

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183136
> Mike:
> 
> I'm sorry for being so vague in my question. I was looking for 
> another impetus that may have caused Snape to have a change of 
heart. 
> Something besides Lily's impending doom. Your examples showed that 
> Snape was a decent human being that cared for the sanctity of 
life; 
> he was concerned for all people. But I don't see him changing from 
> some callous youth into this person. I have no indication he was 
> somehow different before the prophecy and the Lily dilemma.

(snipped)
> I suspect that Voldemort was still in his charming, recruitment 
mode 
> when Severus became enamored with the idea. Yet the name alone, 
Death 
> Eaters, should have been a large enough red flag to warn off a 
person 
> of Severus's intelligence. Another enigma that we won't ever get 
> solved.

(snipped)

> I'm wading into some speculation waters here, but I think Snape 
would 
> have been the same decent human being even as a DE. I think even 
> without the prophecy and Lily, eventually something would have 
> impelled Snape back to the side of good. But did you see anything 
> like that in the story, anything besides Lily that caused Snape to 
> return?


Leah: I'm cutting your post because basically I agree with 
everything you say about Snape.

Why does anyone do stupid political things in their youth?  I was 
watching a documentary a while back about a young British man of 
Asian Muslim extraction. He had a university education, came from a 
Westernised family and had many white non-Muslim friends. He joined 
an extremist Islamist group after 9/11 because he thought Muslims 
would need protection against an inevitable backlash.  The 
organisation he joined portrayed itself  as simply supporting Muslim 
values, but it was in fact a terrorist organisation, something that 
could have been found out through investigation when he joined. He 
left after the July 7 bombings in London when he found out what he 
had got into and now talks in schools etc about fundamentalism and 
terrorism.  While seeing people being blown to smithereens is a more 
compelling reason for leaving than Lily being in danger, the point 
is that this man went through no fundamental character change - he 
was misled or allowed himself to be misled, he joined up for what 
objectively was a worthwhile reason, and he was the same person,just 
with his eyes open, when he left.

The trouble with the books is that the Deatheaters are presented as 
a cluster of bigoted baddies, with no real character development 
(except for Malfoy) and then there's Snape.  Without further 
explanation, it doesn't make a lot of sense.  Possible reasons for 
Snape joining the Deatheaters:

1. Protecting the wizarding world from Muggles. For the first time 
in history, Muggle technology gives Muggles something approaching 
wizarding skills -healing, flying, moving rapidly from place to 
place, communicating instantly at long distances.  And the Muggle 
world in the late seventies is not appetising: there's been the 
Vietnam war, the escalation of the Cold War, nuclear weapons, and 
the memory of the Holocaust, when Muggles showed what they could do 
to people they considered Other.  If Voldemort set out a shopfront 
of keeping the WW safe from Muggles, that might well appeal to a 
young man who has personal experience of Muggles and their attitude 
to magic, which has not been good.

2. The structure of the WW. This isn't some lovely democracy.  There 
is a great deal of corruption and patronage in the ruling class.  
Barty Crouch Snr has licensed the equivalent of the police force to 
use Unforgiveables. Dumbledore is running a private army which 
operates separately from the Ministry.  Everyoee looks down on 
Muggles to some extent - no one actually wants to dress like a 
Muggle; everyone can see how to, they just don't do it, even people 
like Arthur Weasley regard Muggles as some amusing group in need of 
protection, not as equals.  In these circumstances, the situation 
seems more like a country like Lebanon, with rival factions 
competing for power, than the Deatheaters being an outside terrorist 
threat.  After all, some of the most influential and old-establised 
wizarding families support Voldemort's public agenda (eg the Blacks).

3. Personal reasons:  Snape has been bullied and humiliated by boys 
who later join Dumbledore's organisation.  Neither Dumbledore or 
Slughorn have done anything effective to stop the bullying or to 
punish a boy who set Snape up to be transformed into a werewolf or 
killed.  At least Avery and Mulciber hang out with him, and Malfoy 
impliedly appears to offer him some sort of patronage.  There seems 
absolutely no reason why school leaving Snape should think the Order 
is a good place for him to be, but some reason why the Deatheaters 
might appeal. Terrorist organisations and cults make a habit of 
targeting lonely isolated 'lost' boys like Snape. 

4. JKR has said Snape joined because he thought it would make Lily 
think he was cool. That seems rather unlikely from what we see of 
Lily's reaction to Avery et al in the books.  He may have thought he 
could protect Lily as a Deatheater.  And actually, Lily is attracted 
to a boy who is one of the class leaders, has his own gang, and uses 
that gang to bully and humiliate others. (She is attracted in SWM, 
before James apparently changes)  So perhaps Snape is not as daft as 
all that.

5. Deatheating- the destruction of death. I don't think that's 
necessarily a warning sign.  Harry is confused by the very similar 
Christian message on the headstone.  Snape is interested in magic, 
allegedly in dark magic, and in developing new skills and spells. If 
this is presented as part of Voldemort's agenda, he might well be 
interested.

Finally - my impression is not that Snape was coming back to 
the 'right side' when he came to Dumbledore. The item on his agenda 
is to warn Dumbledore and save Lily.  If Voldemort finds out what he 
has done, Snape will die. He also expects Dumbledore to kill him, 
and just wants to get his message out first.  We just don't know 
whether he has hated every moment with the Deatheaters, or whether 
he would have become Voldemort's right hand man if Lily had not been 
threatened.  I suspect the former, but you can't just leave the 
Deatheaters. It is the threat to Lily that makes Snape put his life 
on the line. He seems to me to be a boy without hope.  Inadvertantly 
this warning leads to him working for the Order, and in the end I 
think, he saves himself and allows his true nature to triumph.  But 
as others have said, I don't think he thinks he is necessarily 
saving the world for the light.

Leah          





From captivity at gmail.com  Fri Jun  6 12:33:42 2008
From: captivity at gmail.com (pea22407)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:33:42 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2av7f+r3i5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2bar6+6jb4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183149

Just felt I would weigh in on what seems to be a well-hashed out
matter of opinion.

I gloated terribly in Book 7.  Because I called it from Book 3 or $
-whichever one had Petunia mentioning the "greasy-haired boy" visiting
the house.  Oh I was all on top of that and I ranted for years,
fanatically pulling out one defense after another until I was perectly
manic at the end of Book 6.

Book 7 was a BIG vindication for me - but not as much as I thought -
Snape's aversion to the word mudblood - could easily be a carry-over
from that conversation with Lily - and Snape's determined support of
Harry as well - however there are a few things that have already been
mentioned here, and I think the number one favorite of mine is Snape
interfering with the Weasley twin's attacker and making the kid "holey."

He didn't have to interfere, his inaction could easily have gone
unnoticed, and it was entirely irrelevant to the goal of keeping Harry
safe.  But he saved the boy (sans ear) and would have been content to
never reveal his role - had he lived.  I say this because Snape didn't
intend to die, he scrabbled for his life as top-ranked DE, and was
killed for carrying out his promise to Albus.  Snape had never in all
those years gave and inkling at his role in helping to keep Harry on
his broom while Quirrel did his best to create a nasty fall.  I could
allow him a moment of blind insanity in the Shrieking Shack - and I
think that is because I have been tortured by kids at school - dragged
around the playground by my hair, ostracized, kept like a Pettigrew by
bullies, etc.  The difference being that I became independent and
wise.  I have friends now, I don't call them often, but then again I'm
27.  I saw an old alum from high sol who marveled that I could be a
mom because I was such a b**** years ago.  abuse and torment at the
hands of one's peers during such a delicate age can seriously warp the
mind of the most decent and persevering human being.  

I identify with Snape, and considering his upbringing, I am a big fan
of the person he'd become.  I believe that we would be pals.  I see
nothing at all wrong with his teaching style - I view him as a hard
taskmaster who is to be respected.  He always speaks up in defense of
the children where violence is concerned, while he may do it in
derisive tones, he still speaks up.  My sense of humor and ability to
kowtow to other people's feelings is probably as deficient as Snape's
at times.  All in all, he remains my favorite character, the most
intense, the one with most decisions to make.  And the one with the
hardest mistakes to correct.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Jun  6 13:48:35 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:48:35 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2bar6+6jb4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2bf7j+4rk9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183150

pea22407:


> Just felt I would weigh in on what seems to be a well-hashed out
> matter of opinion.
> 
> I gloated terribly in Book 7.  Because I called it from Book 3 or $
> -whichever one had Petunia mentioning the "greasy-haired boy" 
visiting
> the house.  Oh I was all on top of that and I ranted for years,
> fanatically pulling out one defense after another until I was 
perectly
> manic at the end of Book 6.

Magpie:
I think you can gloat even more. Petunia said "that awful boy" told 
Lily about Dementors. Had she said "greasy-haired boy" it would 
obviously have been Snape (James have greasy hair? Never!). 
But "awful boy" could have applied to James or Snape in Petunia's 
eyes.

-m





From ranirissa at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  6 03:22:23 2008
From: ranirissa at yahoo.com (ranirissa)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:22:23 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2a87e+uk6m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2aahf+f5j4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183151

Pippin:
> >
> > I don't think Snape had any grand Dumbledorean hopes of making
> > the WW a better place. To his mind it was a cruel world and would
> > remain so, whether Voldemort stood or fell. And he was always
> > going to think Harry James Potter was a waste of space. But there
> > were definitely things he cared about other than Lily.

Mike:
>
> I'm with you here. Though I do think some of what Dumbledore stood
> for rubbed off on Severus over the years. I take him for his worded
> when he said " *Lately*, only those ..." Before his "lately" do you
> suppose he just stood by when he could have done something?
>
> Speculating again; I think it was a matter of degrees. In the past,
> he probably didn't raise a finger to save another DE, as he
> likewise wouldn't have stopped what he was doing to save Sirius
> Black. But he would have saved an innocent if it was within his
> power to do so. In his later days, I think he would have saved both
> the DE and Sirius.


I'm new to posting but really had to get in on this topic.  I simply
loved Snape.  No more than Sirius or other characters but I certainly
would have wanted to be friends with him.  I think he would have been
at any point in his life a true friend.  He had a tough childhood,
wasn't the coolest or most lovable kid when he began at Hogwarts,
was sorted into the house with the largest amount of Death Eaters by
far - it seems that most students developed closest friendships with
the other students in their house.  There was no indication any other
students reached out to befriend him aside from Lily and the future
Death Eaters.  I don't think he actually ever chose between the two.
I think the Death Eater friends were simply a way of fitting in
somewhere.  I also believe Lily loved Snape, if not in a romantic
way, and she very well may have been the only one in his life who
truly did so.

>From what I take away, Snape did try to protect the students at
Hogwarts through all 7 books.  He was definitely the bravest of the
adult characters and, instead of receiving praise, he was mocked by
Sirius and obviously never felt comfortable to so much as eat a meal
with any of the Order.

Anyway, I would have loved to have seen him survive and have the
opportunity to live a some kind of normal life.

ranirissa



From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Fri Jun  6 16:02:10 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:02:10 -0000
Subject: Reason for Ron's fears?
In-Reply-To: <g26ecq+cu3j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2bn22+6mvh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183152

--- > ---  "happyjoeysmiley" <happyjoeysmiley@> wrote:
> >
> > Why did Ron feel insecure of Harry/Hermione's friendship 
> > despite obvious hints 

 steve/bboyminn wrote

snip most of post
> 
> > So, Ron feels he is inadequate. He fears he won't live up to 
> his families expectations.


Me

Don't forget, Ron is the youngest of 5 boys all who have great skills
Bill is a curse breaker, Charlie is great with dragons, Percy was 
good at school
The above all got good Owls etc
The twins were not that good at school, but were great at making 
money.

Ron is also friendly with Harry who seems to come over to everyone
as special, so it is no wonder he feels insecure

He in fact is one of the best. He is loyal, brave, and a friend 
anyone would be proud to have, but he of course doesn't realise that

Jayne
Who is a great admirer of Ron






From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com  Fri Jun  6 16:05:24 2008
From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:05:24 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2976t+93rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2bn84+kn88@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183153

> Mike:
>
> We've had a recent thread that mourns the passing of Snape. I don't, 
> but that led to this query. In the interest of full disclosure, I am 
> a Marauder fan and Sirius Black is my favorite character. So I am 
> naturally biased towards despising one Severus Snape. OK, now on to 
> the show. ;-)

Tiffany:

My likeability of Snape changed through the canon, first I thought he 
was up to no good & a typical Slytherin character.  By the end, I felt 
like he was a good guy most of the times & was a pretty likeable 
person.  I never truly either hated or loved Snape, so I can't say if 
he's one of my most or least favorite characters there, but he's 
solidly in the middle somewhere.




From secretwindow-jd1 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jun  6 16:07:02 2008
From: secretwindow-jd1 at sbcglobal.net (maria)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Reason for Ron's fears?
In-Reply-To: <g2bn22+6mvh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <939468.93280.qm@web83008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183154

I think Ron didn't know how to go about letting Hermione know his true feelings for her.  As Hermione and Harry got along, he wished it could have come that easily for him.

                 
Maria




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Jun  6 19:28:16 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:28:16 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2a87e+uk6m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2c34g+969o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183155

Mike:
> 
> Along with my belief that Snape was really on the good side comes a 
> conviction that Snape wasn't an evil person. That is, Snape was 
> basically an upstanding member of the wizarding community. One that 
> had his faults and foibles like all the rest. IOW, he wasn't a Death 
> Eater at heart. This, of course, makes his decision to join the DEs 
> all the more confounding.
 
> I suspect that Voldemort was still in his charming, recruitment mode
> when Severus became enamored with the idea. Yet the name alone,
Death  Eaters, should have been a large enough red flag to warn off a
person  of Severus's intelligence. Another enigma that we won't ever
get solved.> 
> Back to my point: I didn't expect to find that Snape had joined the 
> Death Eaters. And when I found out he had, I still thought he must 
> have been different from the typical DEs, that he must have joined 
> through some kind of deception.

Pippin:
But that *is* typical.  All  the DE's joined through some kind of
deception,  multiple deceptions in fact. As Sirius says, Voldemort
doesn't bang on people's doors and order them to join him, he tricks,
jinxes and blackmails. And he lies and lies.

As you say, Snape does have a sense of the sanctity of life and of
obligation to others. Most wizards do. But he could believe, just as
Dumbledore once did, that he was acting for just those reasons.  

After all, if wizards are all basically the same, then why shouldn't
what's good for the purebloods be good for wizards in general? And if
they're *not* basically the same, if they do have different needs,
then why shouldn't the needs of the noble purebloods prevail over the
needs of the filthy mudbloods, who insist on shielding their useless
Muggle relatives to the expense and endangerment of wizards?  

As Dumbledore says, it's difficult to protect nameless, faceless
strangers over those whom we know and love. And there is an honest
debate in wizarding society, even as there is among the readers, over
whether that is in fact the right thing to do. A lot of people don't
think Dumbledore had any right to propose Harry's life as a sacrifice
to save the wizarding world, even if that was, as Harry thinks, the
path that would cost the fewest lives overall.  Those people surely
have just as much respect for the sanctity of life and the sacredness
of obligations as others -- it's just that their system for resolving
conflicting obligations is different. 

Harry's fate is of course the extreme example. But any accommodation
with others is going to entail conflict. It's seldom possible to come
up with settlements that seem fair to everyone, especially if people
are asked to sacrifice and compromise on something they hold sacred.
And make no mistake, the status quo requires a great deal of sacrifice
from wizardkind.

Life *would* in many ways be a lot simpler, safer and more pleasant
for the wizards if they didn't have to hide  from the Muggles. As we
learn in the last three books, the secret life isn't nearly so
appealing when it's being forced on you. 

Lily was living proof that the pureblood philosophy wasn't universally
valid -- that despite the difficulties of adapting to their needs, a
Muggleborn could be the functional equal of a wizard. But was she
typical, or a rarity like Dobby? Snape assumed she was a rarity, and
he trusted that Voldemort would make an exception for her if he asked. 

And that leads to the second deception.   Snape must have thought that
Voldemort would honor his word to spare Lily, or he never would have
asked for it. Of course Voldemort (Mark I) had no sense of obligation
to anyone, but he took care to conceal that, a job made easier because
wizards seem to have no concept of psychopaths in general.  

So, Snape's  awakening wasn't to the nature of evil but to the nature
of Voldemort.   It was the threat to Lily which forced him to
acknowledge that Voldemort might not keep his word. That would
probably have happened even without Lily. Most of LV's servants seem
to have  realized that they couldn't trust him, but by then their only
alternative was death. What made Snape unusual is that he loved Lily
enough to face that alternative for her sake, and had the means to
conceal his defection from Voldemort and reach Dumbledore.  

Would Snape have thought of working against Voldemort on his own if he
hadn't been impelled to seek aid for Lily? I doubt it, because all the
Death Eaters knew that if Voldemort even suspected they were working
against him, they'd be killed within days along with their entire
families. 

I'm sure Snape never thought in his wildest dreams that he would
survive for seventeen years. He was on borrowed time from the moment
(which we don't see) in which he sent his first message to Dumbledore.

Eventually Snape learned, IMO, that lives were valuable just because
they exist, and he was no longer willing to let a life be taken if he
thought he could save it. And that was not just because he was serving
Dumbledore and trying to be a good little Phoenix, because we see him
do this in defiance of Dumbledore's orders and at risk to the Order's
mission.

You might think that Snape was innately wicked not to have known this
from childhood. But as I've tried to explain, it isn't self-evident
that all lives are equally valuable, especially if you haven't been
brought up to think so. 

Many of us are taught from childhood that explicit racism is wrong,
and the thought of knowingly embracing a racist philosophy would make
us physically ill, so it's easy to think there must have been
something inherently wrong with Snape not to feel that way from the
start. But such feelings are, IMO, a result of conditioning that Snape
never had -- not until he was older, anyway.

Pippin





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  6 19:47:47 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:47:47 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g29c2p+d28t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2c493+6d80@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183156

> >> Mike:
> > We've had a recent thread that mourns the passing of Snape. I 
> > don't, but that led to this query.
> > <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Just when I thought I was out, you pull me back in. :D  It's a good 
question with a complicated answer, for me.  Pre-DH, the answer was 
easy: I quite liked Snape.  Like, a lot.  And yeah, I'd have totally 
been friends with him, from childhood onward.  Sure there would have 
been times that I'd cry, "Oh, Severus, you *didn't*!" and other times 
we'd get into massive philosophical battles (OMG, fun!!).  But I saw 
him as a solid, intelligent, principled guy with a delicious wit and 
a healthy sense of irony.  Totally BFF material. ;) 

Post-DH?  Yeah... no, we wouldn't have been friends.  I think I'd 
have *tried* to be his friend, but his continuing sense of 
worthlessness, his bizarre fixation on those who those who thought so 
little of him (Lily and then Dumbledore), would have turned me off.  

I'd have felt pity, but with a tinge of contempt (which is ugly of 
me, I recognize, but there it is).  I think I'd have joined with 
others in mourning what could have been.  If I'd gone to 
Hogwarts ::shudder::, I think I would have felt a certain solidarity 
with him (as a fellow Slytherin <eg>), and so I'd have been friendly. 
But it's hard to be friends with someone who isn't friends back.  And 
post-DH!Snape wasn't equipped, unfortunately.

> >>Magpie:
> <snip>
> But unfortunately he has to compete with the guy I thought he was   
> for the first six books and he can't.

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  The Snape I knew, pre-DH, would have looked at the DH-Snape 
with shuddering horror.  That Snape died wasn't what hurt me; JKR 
made sure he never really lived.  And that's what I mourn.

Betsy Hp




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  6 20:13:14 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:13:14 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2c493+6d80@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2c5oq+l0va@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183157

> Betsy Hp:
> Just when I thought I was out, you pull me back in. :D  It's a good 
> question with a complicated answer, for me.  Pre-DH, the answer was 
> easy: I quite liked Snape.  Like, a lot.  And yeah, I'd have 
totally 
> been friends with him, from childhood onward.  Sure there would 
have 
> been times that I'd cry, "Oh, Severus, you *didn't*!" and other 
times 
> we'd get into massive philosophical battles (OMG, fun!!).  But I 
saw 
> him as a solid, intelligent, principled guy with a delicious wit 
and 
> a healthy sense of irony.  Totally BFF material. ;) 
> 
> Post-DH?  Yeah... no, we wouldn't have been friends.  I think I'd 
> have *tried* to be his friend, but his continuing sense of 
> worthlessness, his bizarre fixation on those who those who thought 
so 
> little of him (Lily and then Dumbledore), would have turned me 
off.  

a_svirn:
I don't think there is any real contrast between the pre and post DH 
Snapes. The thing is, before DH we simply didn't know what it was 
that had been driving him. He was a classic riddle-wrapped-in-a-
mystery-inside-an-enigma case. I can see how one can be attracted to 
a mysterious stranger, but it is next to impossible to be friends 
with one.  

> > >>Magpie:
> > <snip>
> > But unfortunately he has to compete with the guy I thought he 
was   
> > for the first six books and he can't.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Exactly.  The Snape I knew, pre-DH, would have looked at the DH-
Snape 
> with shuddering horror.  

a_svirn:
How can you tell? 






From siskiou at gmail.com  Fri Jun  6 21:44:55 2008
From: siskiou at gmail.com (Susanne)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 14:44:55 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Reason for Ron's fears?
In-Reply-To: <g26ecq+cu3j@eGroups.com>
References: <g25mi7+a620@eGroups.com> <g26ecq+cu3j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1285750935.20080606144455@gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183158



Hi,

Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 9:03:38 AM, Steve wrote:

> So, Ron feels he is inadequate. He fears he won't live up to
> his families expectations. He fears he can never be Harry's
> equal, and as such, he can't imagine why any girl would prefer
> him over Harry. It's not easy always being in Harry's shadow.

I think there is a little more to it than
irrational insecurities.

After all, Hermione is very complimentary of Harry
and totally supportive, but she seems to expect
Ron to not need that.

She assumes Ron can only be good at Quidditch when
taking a potion (which is understandable under the
circumstances, but with Ron being insecure, it
magnifies her seemingly thinking him incompetent
at almost everything).

She tells Harry he is very "fanciable", but hardly
ever compliments Ron in any way until the last
book.

Many times she tells Ron how immature he is, has
the emotional range of a teaspoon etc.

It'd obvious to outsiders that she fancies him,
but not to Ron himself, and I understand why.

In Ron's place, I'd be wondering, too.
He probably is pretty sure that *Harry* doesn't
fancy Hermione, but not so sure at all about
Hermione's feelings.

Harry is in a lot more need of help, emotionally
and he is, of course, in constant physical danger.
Ron is on occasion, and then we see Hermione's
feelings come through clearly, but Ron is usually
not aware enough at the time to notice it.

Ron's siblings don't exactly support him, either,
in fact, it's more the opposite. Fred, George and
Ginny all seem to take great pleasure in making
Ron look stupid in front of females and take the
mickey at any opportunity.
And all of his siblings are more "brilliant or
powerful" on the surface than Ron appears.
He comes through with flying colors in real
situations, but fails in class or test situations.

So, I have no problems understanding his fears and
emphasizing with them.

Same with Hermione's side of the stories, or Harry
for that matter.
They all have their personal sets of issues.



-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at gmail.com






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  6 22:22:21 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:22:21 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2976t+93rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2cdau+j3q3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183159

Mike wrote:
>
> We've had a recent thread that mourns the passing of Snape. I don't,
but that led to this query. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a
Marauder fan and Sirius Black is my favorite character. So I am
naturally biased towards despising one Severus Snape. OK, now on to 
the show. ;-)

Carol responds:
Of course, that bias works the opposite way as well. For a reader
predisposed to like Snape, it's very hard to like the Marauders,
especially after SWM. A reader predisposed to dislike him, OTOH, will
probably take the Marauders to his heart and excuse their bullying and
arrogance as youthful folly. There's no undoing someone else's
emotional reaction. The best we can do is try to understand it, as you
seem to be doing.

Mike: 
> JKR admitted Snape was "a gift of a character", and I'll second
that. Whatever your leanings I don't see how you could not be
entertained by the enigma that was Snape. JKR made sure we would all
want to know where exactly Severus stood and why he stood there, as
much as we wanted to know what was going to happen to Harry. For some
of you, maybe more.

Carol:
Exactly. I can't speak for anyone else, but I very seldom identify
with Harry, but from the beginning I couldn't help feeling a certain
fondness for a teacher who speaks of his own subject in glowing,
poetic terms and dares to refer to students who don't understand and
appreciate it as "dunderheads." Real-life Muggle teachers can't do
that these days, but anyone who has ever taught a required course that
some students dislike must know the feeling and *wish* they could say
it. And what teacher or former teacher wouldn't envy his ability to
get the students' attention simply by walking into the room? And, of
course, it's always fun to read about a mysterious, ambiguous
character about whom the protagonist appears to be wrong. (Shades of
Jane Austen.)

Mike: 
> In that respect, I too liked Severus Snape. I too wanted to know why
he was the way he was. I even color myself slightly disappointed that
his love for Lily was the *only* driving force that propelled him to
do what he did for Harry and the good side. I wanted to see something
 more. Maybe some of you did see more, if so maybe you could cite some
canon for your belief? 

Carol:
Without having read the other responses, I'm at some risk of repeating
what others have said. But I think that Snape never does anything
halfway. Once he's decided, not only to risk his life to save Lily's
and, later, to continue to protect Harry so that Lily's death won't
have been in vain, he purs all of his considerable intelligence and
ingenuity into the project. He really does become Dumbledore's man ("I
have spied *for you* and lied *for you*, put myself in mortal danger
*for you*" DH Am. ed. 687). Admittedly, he says that it was all
supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe, but that isn't all he
was doing. He was opposing Voldemort and, as he says in OoP, "finding
out what the Dark Lord is telling his Death Eaters"--not always in
relation to Harry. We know that Snape told DD that LV had assigned
Draco to murder him--nothing to do with Harry. We know that Snape
stopped the curse caused by the ring from killing DD immediately and
would have done more if DD had let him--nothing to do with Harry. The
same is true of agreeing, with great reluctance, to kill Dumbledore if
necessary. The arguments DD uses to persuade Snape have nothing to do
with Harry (or Lily). Nor does Snape's new penchant for saving any
life he can save (DD's, Katie Bell's, Draco's, Lupin's and others that
must have occurred earlier, off-page) have anything to do with Harry
or Lily. Just as he decides on his own to remain at Hogwarts with
Dumbledore rather than flee when Voldemort returns, he decides to save
lives that DD doesn't even know about. ("How many people have you
watched die, Severus?" "Lately, only those whom I could not save.")
The words indicate a change of heart, a change of perspective, a
change of principle, a change from passive observer to active
participant, undoing evil caused by others whenever he can--as we
first see when he opposes Quirrell and saves Harry from his
countercurse, going well beyond the instruction to "keep an eye on
Quirrell for me" given him by DD.

Mike: 
> For me, I've adapted myself to the Magpie school of interpreting 
canon: if it's not in the book, it didn't happen. Some will say that
Snape took up Dumbledore's banner not just for Lily, but because he 
had some epiphany about Voldemort. I say I expected that to be part 
of his change, but I didn't see it. 
> Up until the very end, all we were shown was that Severus did it all
for Lily. The Doe Patronus followed by his answer to Dumbledore:
"Always"; his keeping Lily's signature and tearing her picture from
James and Harry to take out of 12 GP. Do you have some canon that can
convince me that Snape had some other motivation besides Lily?

Carol responds:
Voldemort is trying to kill the woman he loves, and young Snape vows
to do "anything" to prevent that. After Lily's death, which DD has
failed to prevent, Snape could easily have left Hogwarts in bitterness
against DD (and found some other way to avoid Azkaban) or just used
DD's protection as he claims to have done as a means of avoiding
imprisonment. Instead, he agrees, despite fierce anguish, to help
protect Harry when Voldemort returns--which means that he must also
oppose Voldemort--Lily's murderer--in any way he can. It amounts to
the same thing. (Harry's reasons for opposing Voldemort are equally
personal, starting with "Voldemort killed my parents!") There is also,
of course, the question of Snape's own courage. He refuses to run away
like Karkaroff. And I think that part of him enjoys acting, testing
his skill at lying and spying without detection, and "hoodwinking"
Voldemort, the formidable Legilimens, with his superb Occlumency.
True, it would be nice to see *principle* enter into it more clearly,
but I think that Snape's risking his cover by saving lives that he
didn't have to save, especially Lupin's, is sufficient to show that
he's not just doing it all for Lily, whatever he himself may believe.

As for loving Lily, I think we need to consider what Lily seems to
represent for Snape (as opposed to the "real" Lily, who may not have
been quite what he thought she was). The Patronus is pure and
beautiful and wholly good, and Snape is not only trying to atone for
his role in her death by protecting her son but fighting, risking his
life, much like a medieval knight for his "lady" (often someone else's
wife), for what he believes her to represent--the opposite in all
respects of Voldemort, whose selfish will to power and desire for
immortality contrast with Lily's self-sacrifice and love. Snape may
not wear his heart on his sleeve (or his lady's token on his lance
like a medieval knight), but his Patronus shows what he values and
what he is fighting for and what he thinks he has lost in Lily's death.

Mike: 
> But that wasn't my question, was it? ;-) I wanted to know if you
liked Severus Snape. I don't want to know if you liked having his 
character in the books, I've already said that I liked having Snape 
in the books and I hate the guy. I'm not really asking if you 
sympathize or empathize with him. Heck, I sympathize with the young 
Severus in the playground with Lily, per-Hogwarts. No, what I want to
know is if you *liked* Severus? 

Carol:
Yes, I like him. He's my favorite character, and even when he's in the
wrong, I still like him (which is different from approving his
actions. "I see no difference" is cruel and probably indefensible, but
 it's not nearly as bad, IMO, as Harry's much crueler and equally
indefensible Crucio). I love his snarky lines, especially against
Sirius Black, Umbridge, and Bellatrix. I love his courage and the way
he sweeps out of doorways. I love his courage and his willingness to
risk his own life (and soul) to protect Draco's. I can't get enough of
him and I only wish he were in more scenes, especially OoP, where his
working against Umbridge remains in the background until almost the
end, and in GoF, where he seems to be almost replaced as DD's
right-hand man by "Moody"--a situation that he no doubt resents but
does not complain about to DD (in contrast to Trelawney's compliaints
about "the usurping nag"). 

Mike: 
> If you were in the Potterverse, would you be mates with him? If your
answer is yes, is it unqualified? That is, would you have been mates
when he was just pre-Hogwarts, during Hogwarts as a student, only 
after he returned to Dumbledore to plea for Lily's life, or do you 
have no qualifications? <snip>

Carol:
That's a hard question. I'm pretty sure that I would have been Sorted
into Ravenclaw, so I wouldn't have had to deal with the
Gryffindor/Slytherin mutual antipathy. I'd like to think that if I
were his age and shared any classes with him that I would have
recognised him as gifted and would have at least been civil to him,
maybe befriended him if he'd let me. It's hard to say, of course, but
as we're dealing with entirely imaginary scenarios, I'll say that, for
my part, I would have been his friend. What he really needed, though,
was guidance, and neither Slughorn nor DD provided him with that. Had
I been his fellow teacher, I would have treated him with the respect
and cordiality that we see from McGonagall before she finds out that
he's a former DE (the Dark Mark that he reveals to Fudge)--and I hope
that I would have believed in him *because* of that gesture and for
other reasons (his opposition to Quirrell and Fake!Moody, his actions
for the Order, his saving of Harry's life) and not just on
Dumbledore's word. He *needed* friends and genuinely trustworthy
confidants other than Dumbledore. Secrecy was his downfall, as it was
DD's.

Mike: 
> Is there any part of his behavior you disliked, abhorred, or just
thought was a little too over the top?

Carol:
Abhorred? No. Disliked? The remark about Hermione's teeth previously
mentioned is about the only instance. Over the top? His reaction in
the Shrieking Shack *seemed* so--until we learn that he thought that
Sirius Black betrayed Lily to her death. After that, it's quite
surprising that he mastered himself and instead of killing SB or
turning him over directly to the Dementors, he conjured a stretcher
for him (along with the unconscious Trio) and took him to the proper
authority, Fudge. It's interesting to note at exactly what point
Snape, who is usually in command of himself and the situation, loses
control. And we see in those situations exactly how much anger and
resentment he is holding in at other times.

Mike: 
> You see, I'm curious. I could never understand the attraction.

Carol:
I think, for some of us, it was instantaneous. That poetic speech
about Potions either grabbed you or it didn't. As for his questioning
of Harry on that first day of class, I think he had every reason,
given the hope of some DEs that Harry was a Dark Wizard that they
could rally around, to find out exactly how much Harry knew or didn't
know. Granted, taking a point from him for not helping Neville was
completely unfair, but it was only a point. And he also had every
reason for being exasperrated with Neville. I suppose that reactions
to that first scene cemented our feelings about Snape. If we really
liked Harry and our overall impression was Snape's unfairness, we
hated Snape. If we empathized at all with Snape and felt that there
was something more to this mysterious, almost Gothic character than
Harry could see, we liked him. I can't explain it any better than
that. I only know that I wanted to see more of Snape and find out
whether he really viewed spell-casting as "silly wand waving" and
whether he could use a wand as well as he could make potions. CoS
showed me that he could. Loved the Duelling Club and putting Lockhart
in his place!

Mike:
> I guessed, as did practically all of us, that Snape was ultimately
on the good side. But there were too many things about him for me to
get past to like him. I didn't take Lupinlore's approach that his
teaching was child abuse, but I did agree with Alla that it was 
abhorrent behavior. 

Carol:
Compared with Umbridge's or even Filch's idea of what detention should
involve, I'd say that his were pretty tame. And his behavior always
reminded me of that depicted in books about nineteenth-century
education. Compared with the schoolmasters we encounter in the various
Dickens novels, Snape's teaching methods are pretty tame. And, as has
often been noted, he always tells the student, whether it's Neville or
Harry, exactly where he went wrong in making the potion. (Too bad he
never does the same for Ron, but maybe he has no hopes for Ron's
improvement, or no concern for his progress.)

Mike:
And though I laughed at some of his wittier  lines, that didn't
supplant my dislike for the overall character.
> 
Carol:
At least you appreciated the wit. For me, it's part of his attraction
as a character--that and his talents and courage and obvious
intelligence and little things like the way he moves and speaks. I
always downplayed the ugliness as Harry's impression, exaggerated like
the size of Hagrid's hands or Madame Maxime's feet. We don't get that
same impression in the objectively narrated "Spinner's End," where we
see the thin face, sallow complexion and curtains of black hair, but
no hint of abhorrent ugliness. The beautiful Narcissa Malfoy, after
all, throws herself at his feet, cries on his chest, and, IIRC, kisses
his hands. There seems to be something magnetic and powerful about
him, and even those who dislike him sense it.

Mike:
> I didn't place most of the blame on him for James's and Lily's 
deaths; in fact I put him third after LV and Pettigrew. 

Carol:
I agree.

Mike:
> But he does get some blame there that cannot be expunged in my eyes.

Carol:
Or his own. He spends the rest of his life trying to atone for a sin
for which he can never forgive himself. And yet he did what he
could--going first to LV to ask him to spare Lily and then to DD to
ask for his help. Had it not been for Snape, Lily would not have had
the chance to live that gave her self-sacrifice the power of ancient
magic and had it not been for Snape there would have been no Fidelius
Charm (which would not have been breached if DD or Black had been the
SK). 

Mike:
> That he was redeemed for that act, that he spent the rest of his
life serving penitence for that mistake, does not make me like him for it.

Carol responds:
No one *likes* him for that act though many of us *forgive* him for it
(as does Harry). We like him for other reasons--including his snarky
personality and his intelligence and his courage, and it's just fun,
if we forget for a moment what has just happened on the tower and what
it means for both Harry and Snape, to see him so easily parrying all
of Harry's curses. (What did he do during the Battle of Hogwarts
before LV murdered him? How did he fight for the good side without
letting the DEs know what he was up to? That's what I want to know.)

Mike: 
> I have a particular revulsion for the Snape in PoA, in the Shreiking
Shack scene. I've expounded on that enough, I won't continue to bore
you. Funnily enough, I was most entertained by Snape in PoA, too.

Carol:
I've already given my reaction to that scene and the reasons why I
believe that Snape's behavoir there was over the top--and then
mastered. He thought that he was dealing with a murderer (and his
werewolf accomplice), the very man who had, he thought, betrayed the
Potters to their deaths after all his (Snape's) efforts to prevent
that. I'll say here that I think Sirius Black had been a convenient
scapegoat, someone onto whom he could displace some of his own guilt,
much as Harry displaced some of his own guilt for Sirius's death onto
Snape. Finding out later that the traitor was really the despicable
and lowly Wormtail must have been a disappointment. Snape can treat
Wormtail with contempt, as we see in "Spinner's End," but he's
unworthy of active hatred.

Mike: 
> I get that some people identify with Snape, just like lots of people
identified with Harry and I identified with Sirius. Did that make you
like Severus, or understand him, or both?

Carol:
Both, as explained above. (BTW, I only partially identify with him.
I'm not snarky, but I'm certainly entertained by *his* snarkiness!)

Mike: 
> Please, explain to me the attraction!
> 
> Mike, who hopes that Carol gets her computer back before all the
good lines are taken ;-)

Carol:
Thanks, Mike. I deliberately didn't read anyone else's response before
posting mine, and I hope I used or referred to enough "good lines" to
help you understand the attraction without feeling it yourself. (I
think part of it has to do with being female.) BTW, the Sectumsempra
scene is another that I really like because it reveals the healing
skills touched on off-page with DD and Katie Bell, skills that Madam
Pomfrey doesn't have because she knows nothing about Dark magic. Makes
me wonder whether Snape could have done anything to help Bill's
werewolf bites or George's ear had he been given the opportunity.

Carol, still very behind on everything and so unable to search out
favorite Snape quotes for Mike's delectation





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jun  7 00:25:08 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:25:08 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2a0o2+pg29@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2ckh4+10mrb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183160


> 
> Montavilla47:
> I don't have such a negative view of Lily love being the *only*
known driving force.  It wasn't negative before DH, anyway.  And the
only reason it's unpalatable to me now is because he simply wasn't a 
very attractive sweetheart.  Which, come to think of, JKR warned us
about.  ("That's a very horrible thought.  Who would want to be in 
love with him?")
> 
> No, he's most unattractive, with the hungry eyes and open-mouthed,
> panting intensity.  Too needy.  Too clingy.  If you are going to
invest in a ship, you sort of want the lovers to have chemistry.

Pippin:
I think you are being a little hard on Snape here. He was awkward and
needy, but that doesn't make him any worse than Ron at about that age.
Remember GoF Ron, with his Uranus jokes, "pounding his pestle" in
potions class? I wouldn't want GoF Ron in love with me, either. Of
course canon!Snape will never compare as an fantasy boyfriend to
fanon!Snape, created for that purpose. Here we were, hopefully
imagining a dark Byronic figure, and we got Caliban instead. But most
of JKR's teenage boys have a touch of Caliban in them -- only Riddle
was never awkward. But then he was incapable of shame.

Leah:
He calls her a mudblood in a moment of fury and humiliation, while 
she, his supposed best friend, flirts with his tormentor.

Pippin:
And this seems too hard on Lily. Harry did not perceive Lily as
flirting with James in SWM.  We can see that she's attracted to him,
but as has been remarked, people can't help who they're attracted to.
It's James, not Snape, whom Harry suspects of courting Lily against
her will. 

Pippin




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 00:57:24 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:57:24 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2bar6+6jb4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2cmdk+j41a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183161

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pea22407" <captivity at ...> wrote:

<SNIP>

> I think the number one favorite of mine is Snape
> interfering with the Weasley twin's attacker and making the 
> kid "holey."
 
> He didn't have to interfere, his inaction could easily have gone
> unnoticed, and it was entirely irrelevant to the goal of keeping Harry
> safe.  But he saved the boy (sans ear) and would have been content to
> never reveal his role - had he lived.


zanooda:

Snape didn't try to save George, he tried to save Lupin, at whom the 
DE's curse was aimed. However, it speaks even more in Snape's favor, 
doesn't it, considering his animosity against the Marauders. I found it 
touching that he could overcome his grudge and tried to save Lupin even 
though, as you say, he didn't need to do it, his mission being only to 
protect Harry.




From afn01288 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 14:14:21 2008
From: afn01288 at yahoo.com (Troy Doyle)
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 07:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
Message-ID: <308880.67460.qm@web53202.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183162

>zanooda:

>Snape didn't try to save George, he tried to save Lupin, at whom the 
>DE's curse was aimed. However, it speaks even more in Snape's favor, 
>doesn't it, considering his animosity against the Marauders. I found it 
>touching that he could overcome his grudge and tried to save Lupin even 
>though, as you say, he didn't need to do it, his mission being only to 
>protect Harry.
   
  afn:
  I think he was over the whole Maraurders thing (at least with Lupin) when he mixed up potions for Lupin way back in PoA and didn't really "out" hime as werewolf (despite the assigments on them in general).
   
  Second, Snape is a character so he was acting and feeling as likable or not as JKR chose to portray him. For example he was savagely crueler than before to Harry in potions class and occlumency sessions in OoP.

  On a basic, naive, child-like reading Snape is almost totally portrayed as unlikeabe.  That is/was my take on him at that level. I never liked him.
   
  As an adult, seasoned reader I saw behind the JKR chimera of the character.  There red herrings that he was bad could have been better.  More hints like this earlier in the series may have reserved judgement and add more suspense as to liking him or not.  As a grown up I would have needed more hints of  redeeming qualities and action to like him preDH.
  Of course in DH the redeeming climax and denoumont (?sp) forced you to see his selfless willingness to sacrifice his own life.  As a supposedly mature adult professional teaching kids he is almost unquestoningly cruel and basically psychologically unfit for his position.  So until his big reveals and sacrifice nearer the end of DH it was hard to like him, but I knew the early writing showed what would finally make him likeable at the whole series end.
   
  Then, of corse I liked him--but could hardly do otherwise with the story writing plot.  But even as a grown up I couldn't like him pre-DH.  I felt sorry for him mostly through the series and just really disliked him in specific over the top cruelty, e.g. Harry's dungeon detention designed or at least easily foreseen to cause grief and real mental pain sorting detention records making him think of his dad and Sirius. By DH we saw he may have been used by DD to serve DD's purposes in ways tending a bit toward unfairness to Snape.
   
  Bottom line, I didn't, nay couldn't like him as written by JKR prior to DH.  With the series over and loose ends tied up and past stuff cleared up I can't help but like him (but mixed with a giant measure of feeling sorry for him)

       

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gloworm419 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 15:05:03 2008
From: gloworm419 at yahoo.com (Gloria)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:05:03 -0000
Subject: Snape & Harry
Message-ID: <g2e82v+adg5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183163

Gloria says:

Hi all,

I was wondering your opinons on something. At the end of DH when Harry, 
Ron & Hermione go up to the headmasters office after The Big V is dead 
and all the headmasters/headmistresses are giving them a standing 
ovation and clapping, was Snape too? Was he apart of that circle? It 
didn't say in the book and I wonder if they'll use it in the movie? I 
think it would be really nice to see Snape standing & clapping for 
Harry as well, giving each other a 'knowing look'. It would be fitting 
IMO to actually let them have a moment of decency between them.
Just wondering what you all thought.





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 17:01:03 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:01:03 -0000
Subject: Snape & Harry
In-Reply-To: <g2e82v+adg5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2eesf+3n6h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183164

---  "Gloria" <gloworm419 at ...> wrote:
>
> Gloria says:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> ... At the end of DH when Harry, 
> Ron & Hermione go up to the headmasters office after The Big V
> is dead and all the headmasters/headmistresses are giving them
> a standing ovation and clapping, was Snape too? ...

bboyminn:

Although, I can't remember when and where it was said, I vaguely
remember JKR commenting that Snape's portrait did not appear in
the Headmaster's office right after his death. However, JKR
speculated that Harry later made sure that Snape's Headmastership
was acknowledged with  a portrait. 

steve/bboyminn





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 19:07:20 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:07:20 -0000
Subject: Snape & Harry
In-Reply-To: <g2e82v+adg5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2em98+ms1l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183165

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Gloria" <gloworm419 at ...> wrote:
>
> Gloria says:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I was wondering your opinons on something. At the end of DH when Harry, 
> Ron & Hermione go up to the headmasters office after The Big V is dead 
> and all the headmasters/headmistresses are giving them a standing 
> ovation and clapping, was Snape too? Was he apart of that circle? It 
> didn't say in the book and I wonder if they'll use it in the movie? I 
> think it would be really nice to see Snape standing & clapping for 
> Harry as well, giving each other a 'knowing look'. It would be fitting 
> IMO to actually let them have a moment of decency between them.
> Just wondering what you all thought.
>

Montavilla47:

Yes, that would have been nice and satisfying for this reader, at least.  
But, in the books, it didn't happen.  

Whether one should regard JKR's post-series pronouncements as being
part of the story is up to each reader.  But, for what it's worth, JKR was
asked about the lack of a portrait for Snape in the books.  I'm going to 
paragraphrase her answer, since I don't have the exact quote.

~"He didn't have a portrait in the office because he had abandonned his
post as Headmaster of Hogwarts.  I'd like to think that Harry would have
tried to get him a portrait in time."~





From winterfell7 at hotmail.com  Sat Jun  7 22:00:47 2008
From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:00:47 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2cdau+j3q3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2f0ef+srk8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183166

Carol:
As for loving Lily, I think we need to consider what Lily seems to
> represent for Snape (as opposed to the "real" Lily, who may not have
> been quite what he thought she was). The Patronus is pure and
> beautiful and wholly good, and Snape is not only trying to atone for
> his role in her death by protecting her son but fighting, risking his
> life, much like a medieval knight for his "lady" (often someone else's
> wife), for what he believes her to represent--the opposite in all
> respects of Voldemort, whose selfish will to power and desire for
> immortality contrast with Lily's self-sacrifice and love. Snape may
> not wear his heart on his sleeve (or his lady's token on his lance
> like a medieval knight), but his Patronus shows what he values and
> what he is fighting for and what he thinks he has lost in Lily's
death.


Winterfell:
I agree that Snape's image of Lily wasn't quite what she really was,
but rather an idealistic and perhaps even obsessive view instead.
However, I don't agree that Snape is like a medieval knight in his
character or view toward females other than Lily.  He openly ridicules
Hermione with his statement of "I see no difference". That type of
behavior would never be found in a medieval knight, as it would be
against their code of chivalry. Snape's behavior toward many of his
students would hardly fall under an umbrella of chivalry.  His courage
in battle and his loyalty to DD, however would.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Jun  8 00:02:49 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 00:02:49 -0000
Subject: Snape & Harry
In-Reply-To: <g2em98+ms1l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2f7j9+529b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183167

 
> Montavilla47:
> 
> Yes, that would have been nice and satisfying for this reader, at
least.  But, in the books, it didn't happen.  

Pippin:
It would have created a monster plot-hole if it had. Portrait!Snape
would have been somewhere about the castle during the interval between
his death and Harry's victory, and there'd have to be some explanation
of what he'd been doing, which could only be anticlimactic. 

 "He might have just left the room" is perfect, IMO -- poignantly
suggesting Harry's dawning regret that Snape is gone. To have
Portrait!Snape pop up after that would  be a real mood buster.

Here's the quote by the way:
http://www.half-bloodprince.org/snape_jkr.php

Laura Trego: Was the absence of Snape's portrait in the headmasters
office in the last scene innocent or deliberate?

J.K. Rowling: It was deliberate. Snape had effectively abandoned his
post before dying, so he had not merited inclusion in these august
circles. However, I like to think that Harry would be instrumental in
ensuring that Snape's portrait would appear there in due course.

Pippin





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  8 00:08:51 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 00:08:51 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2f0ef+srk8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2f7uj+3le7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183168

Carol earlier:
> As for loving Lily, I think we need to consider what Lily seems to
represent for Snape (as opposed to the "real" Lily, who may not have
been quite what he thought she was). The Patronus is pure and
beautiful and wholly good, and Snape is not only trying to atone for
his role in her death by protecting her son but fighting, risking his
life, much like a medieval knight for his "lady" (often someone else's
wife), for what he believes her to represent--the opposite in all
respects of Voldemort, whose selfish will to power and desire for
immortality contrast with Lily's self-sacrifice and love. Snape may
not wear his heart on his sleeve (or his lady's token on his lance
like a medieval knight), but his Patronus shows what he values and
what he is fighting for and what he thinks he has lost in Lily's death.
> 
> 
> Winterfell:
> I agree that Snape's image of Lily wasn't quite what she really was,
but rather an idealistic and perhaps even obsessive view instead.
However, I don't agree that Snape is like a medieval knight in his
character or view toward females other than Lily.  He openly ridicules
Hermione with his statement of "I see no difference". That type of
behavior would never be found in a medieval knight, as it would be
against their code of chivalry. Snape's behavior toward many of his
students would hardly fall under an umbrella of chivalry.  His courage
in battle and his loyalty to DD, however would.
>
Carol responds:
I didn't say that he was like a medieval knight in any respect other
than his view of Lily. The comparison referred solely to his devotion
to an idealized "lady" (albeit a dead one), and I noted that, in
contrast to a medieval knight bearing his lady's favor on his lance,
Snape did not display his devotion openly. 

His ridicule of Hermione (which I mentioned in two posts in this
thread and which I don't approve any more than you do) has nothing to
do with his feelings about Lily. Nor does his view of women in general
(his gentlemanly treatment of Narcissa and respectful dealings with
Professor McGonagall, in contrast to his scornful treatment of
Bellatrix and Umbridge or his dismissal of Hermione as "an
insufferable know-it-all," which, IMO, she really is though he should
not have said so) have any bearing on the matter. Again, the
knight-and-his-lady comparison relates solely to Snape's devotion to
Lily (who, I'm glad we agree, was not quite the pure and saintlike
being he envisions her as being). I was talking about what
Patronus!Lily represents to Snape. He is fighting for that ideal
without in any way representing it himself. It's *Lily*, Snape's pure,
beautiful, idealized Lily, who represents that ideal--to Snape, if not
to the reader--and we see that ideal embodied in his Patronus.

But I said nothing about Snape's being chivalrous in general (much
less pure and beautiful!). It was, after all, the not-so-gentlemanly
James who upheld the banner of chivalry from the time he was eleven,
not Severus, who valued brains over the showy style of courage at the
same age.

Carol, thanking Steve (Winterfell) for posting but hoping that he'll
read her words a bit more carefully next time (or not read into them
what isn't there)




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  8 01:33:53 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 01:33:53 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <308880.67460.qm@web53202.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g2fcu1+5niu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183169

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Troy Doyle <afn01288 at ...> wrote:

> >zanooda:
 
> > Snape didn't try to save George, he tried to save Lupin, at 
> > whom  the DE's curse was aimed. However, it speaks even more 
> > in Snape's favor, doesn't it, considering his animosity against 
> > the Marauders. I found it touching that he could overcome his 
> > grudge and tried to save Lupin even though, as you say, he 
> > didn't need to do it, his mission being only to protect Harry.
    
> afn:

> I think he was over the whole Maraurders thing (at least with Lupin) 
> when he mixed up potions for Lupin way back in PoA and didn't really 
> "out" hime as werewolf (despite the assigments on them in general).



Well, the reason for my post was just to correct previous poster's
factual mistake (whom Snape tried to save - George or Lupin :-)). As
for your remark about Snape/Lupin in PoA, I don't agree that Snape had
overcome his resentment towards Lupin back then - why to reveal that
Lupin was a werewolf in this case? 

Besides, we cannot compare Snape's actions in PoA and his attempt to
save Lupin in DH. Snape brewed Wolfsbane potion for Lupin and kept his
secret from the students because DD ordered him to, not because he
himself wanted to do it (the potion was also necessary to keep
students, including Harry, safe). In DH, when Snape tried to save
Lupin from the curse, he actually did it *against*  DD's orders (to
play his role convincingly, if forced to take part in the chase). Not
the same thing at all, IMO.


zanooda, who believes that Snape never overcame his grudge completely,
but tried to save Lupin anyway ...




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  8 03:11:20 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 03:11:20 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2fcu1+5niu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2fiko+8au0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183170

zanooda wrote:
<snip post, which I agree with>
> 
> zanooda, who believes that Snape never overcame his grudge
completely, but tried to save Lupin anyway ...

Carol responds:
Snape *did* save Lupin, if only for the ten months or so that they
both had left to live. His curse may have missed the DE's hand
(luckily for Snape) and hit poor George's ear by mistake, but it kept
the DE from completing his Avada Kedavra (or from aiming it properly).
Whatever the case, Lupin lived because of Snape's action and would
have died without it, which counts as saving Lupin's life. My own view
is that the DE heard the first syllable or two of Snape's Sectumsempra
curse and swerved out of the way to avoid being hit by it
"accidentally." By the time he regained his bearings and could cast
another curse, Lupin and George had probably passed through the
protective barrier and disappeared.

In any case, Snape risked exposure of his true loyalties, which would
have meant his own death, to save his old enemy, Lupin (who,
unfortunately, never got a chance to learn what really happened and
thought the worst of Snape)--all, as you said, against DD's orders.

Carol, hoping that Harry told George the real story and still
wondering whether Snape could have healed George's ear as he healed
Draco's wounds from the same spell given the chance





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  8 04:14:55 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 04:14:55 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2fiko+8au0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2fmbv+k68l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183171

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Snape *did* save Lupin, if only for the ten months or so that they
> both had left to live. His curse may have missed the DE's hand
> (luckily for Snape) and hit poor George's ear by mistake, but it 
> kept the DE from completing his Avada Kedavra (or from aiming it 
> properly).
> My own view is that the DE heard the first syllable or two of 
> Snape's Sectumsempra curse and swerved out of the way to 
> avoid being hit by it "accidentally." 


zanooda:

This is exactly what I believe myself, but I didn't dare to write
"Snape saved Lupin", because there is just not enough canon to support
this idea. The chase scene is described very briefly in the memories,
and there is nothing in it suggesting that the DE swerved etc. Your
(and mine :-)) scenario seems very probable, but still, the DE could
have missed Lupin for some other reason than his desire to avoid
Snape's "accidental" Sectumsempra.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  8 05:03:16 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 05:03:16 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2fmbv+k68l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2fp6k+846g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183172

Carol earlier:
> 
> > Snape *did* save Lupin, if only for the ten months or so that they
both had left to live. His curse may have missed the DE's hand
(luckily for Snape) and hit poor George's ear by mistake, but it kept
the DE from completing his Avada Kedavra (or from aiming it properly).
> > My own view is that the DE heard the first syllable or two of
Snape's Sectumsempra curse and swerved out of the way to avoid being
hit by it "accidentally." 
> 
 zanooda:
> 
> This is exactly what I believe myself, but I didn't dare to write
"Snape saved Lupin", because there is just not enough canon to support
this idea. The chase scene is described very briefly in the memories,
and there is nothing in it suggesting that the DE swerved etc. Your
(and mine :-)) scenario seems very probable, but still, the DE could
have missed Lupin for some other reason than his desire to avoid
Snape's "accidental" Sectumsempra.
>
Carol:
Then why have the scene at all, except as a red herring to make Snape
look evil? Lupin lived; I doubt that he would have lived if Snape
hadn't interrupted that Avada Kedavra with the Sectumsempra which we
know he cast. We also know that Snape shouted the spell rather than
casting it nonverbally. If I heard Snape shouting "Sectumsempra," or
even "Sec--!" I'd get out of the way instantly. 

As little canon as there is for our explanation, there's none at all
for a Killing Curse that missed Lupin for "some other reason." And why
else would *Snape*, who is a superior duellist, miss his target,
another DE's hand, unless that hand moved out of the path of the spell?

Snape was trying to save Lupin's life. Lupin lived. Therefore, barring
some other unknown and unmentioned factor, Snape saved Lupin's life.

Carol, who doesn't think you need to be afraid of stating the obvious
interpretation of the scene




From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Sun Jun  8 15:12:03 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 10:12:03 -0500
Subject: Harry and Charlie
References: <1212839315.2754.3123.m46@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <001801c8c97c$df7eb590$69ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1>

No: HPFGUIDX 183173

No, I am not talking about the Dragon loving Weasley brother, I am 
talking about Charlie Bucket, hero of Roald Dahl's book Charlie and 
the Chocolate Factory.  I had read with interest the thread a week or 
two back where people were discussing the way that they responded to 
the first few chapters of SS/PS, when the reader knew that Harry was 
"special" and Harry couldn't figure it out yet.  Were the Dursleys and 
zoo and Uncle Vernon trying (successfully, until the midnight between 
July 30 and July 31) to keep the letters from Harry "boring", with the 
reader wanting to get into the parts where something "happens". 
(There were lots of responses on all sides of the question, depending 
on many issues.)

Now, I happened to be listening to an unabridged audiobook 
presentation of C&tCF.  And it occurred to me that Dahl's opening is 
much like JKR's.  The reader knows all along that Charlie is somehow 
going to get a golden ticket and get to go on the tour of the 
Chocolate Factory.  After all, the title of the book is "Charlie and 
the Chocolate Factory"!  But Dahl spends 10 chapters getting Charlie 
in more and more desperate straights, and making him seem more and 
more deserving before, in Chapter 11, on page 50 (U.S. hardback, 1973 
edition) Charlie finally gets a golden ticket.  And this is out of a 
total of 161 pages, and 30 chapters.  Which is a far longer 
"induction" time, until the "adventure" part of the book begins, than 
occurs in SS/PS.

And this made me think of the comments that I have read over the years 
about similarities between JKR and Dahl.  I had long felt that JKR was 
very different.  And I still see lots of differences.  However, I now 
also see similarities.

For one thing, both seem to want a very "needy" hero/heroine.  Charlie 
has loving parents and grandparents, but the family is very poor, on 
the verge of starvation when Willy Wonka enters their lives.  Matilda 
has parents and a brother who could be the Dursleys.  And I could go 
on and on, listing examples of Dahl major characters.

Both tend to enjoy word play.  Examining the sweets in Harry's world 
and Charlie's will show this (and the fact that some of the strange 
sweets are similar doesn't mean that JKR "took" Dahl's candy pencils 
to suck on in class and turned them into sugar quills, but rather that 
both enjoyed the same kinds of word games and giving children the 
chance for imaginary dream fulfillment.)

Both tend to provide the "baddies" with "poetic justice".  Draco hexes 
Harry and becomes the incredible bouncing ferret.  Mike Teavee, who 
cares for nothing but TV shrinks into a mini-boy who can't do much 
else.  Matilda's parents get punished in appropriately funny ways, 
that the Weasley twins would appreciate.  (As they would love Willy 
Wonka!)

And, while both build up interesting worlds, if something is needed by 
the plot they don't worry about plausibility.  In C&tCF, the family is 
so very poor that they are starving to death.  However, though there 
is no money for food, the father gets a newspaper every day!  Now, I 
can think of ways that he could get a paper without buying it, no 
explanation is ever given, although a sentence would be all it would 
take.  And, "Grandpa Joe" who has spent years in bed is able to get up 
to escort Charlie on the Chocolate Factory tour and walk around all of 
a very full and busy day!

Anyway, back to my point.  It occurred to me that one mental 
difficulty that some readers of HP might have is her tendency to 
sometimes have things exaggerated for humor and full of poetic justice 
and items that happen just to make the plot work, while at other times 
careful explanations are given and foreshadowing is provided, and 
rules of law are spelled out.

In a Dahl world one doesn't ask "how can James enter a giant peach and 
talk to Grasshopper, Centipede, and Earthworm", or how can the great 
glass elevator move from side to side as well as up and down, and fly 
through the air, etc.  And I can't see anyone worrying about Mike 
Teavee or Veruca Salt who gets pushed into the garbage chute by 
squirrels, because she is a "bad nut", etc.  And the events at 
Matilda's school make Snape and Fake/Moody seem like nice people, but 
the reader isn't apt to wonder why Child Welfare hasn't been called 
in.  The books are a type of fantasy that the reader knows doesn't 
follow real world rules.

However, in Harry's world, or actually JKR's world, in spite of the 
magic sometimes things seem so "real" and the rules of that world seem 
to be spelled out.  And when the "poetic justice" causes the DA 
members to hex Crabbe, Goyle and Draco on the train and turn them into 
slug like objects, and step on them we can feel outraged, although we 
don't when the squirrels are dumping Veruca into the chute.

Anyway, it seems to me that JKR's magical world is sort of mid-way 
between some magical worlds, like Tolkien's or perhaps that created by 
Mercedes Lackey, where the "rules" seem consistent (at least to me), 
and the Dahl type magical worlds where the reader knows from the start 
that rules are made to be broken.

Just some poorly formulated ideas that have been floating in my head.

Jerri






From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jun  8 16:57:41 2008
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 8 Jun 2008 16:57:41 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/8/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1212944261.12.99011.m45@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183174

Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday June 8, 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: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20080608/5a1e60a4/attachment.html>

From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  8 20:27:02 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:27:02 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2c5oq+l0va@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2hfam+6apu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183175

> >>a_svirn:
> I don't think there is any real contrast between the pre and post   
> DH Snapes. The thing is, before DH we simply didn't know what it   
> was that had been driving him.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That's where my imagination was my undoing. <g>  I thought I *did* 
know what was driving pre-DH Snape.  And I felt like I knew him.  Oh, 
sure, there were details to be cleared up, but I thought I had a 
pretty clear picture of the guy.  I was wrong.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip> The Snape I knew, pre-DH, would have looked at the DH-
> > Snape with shuddering horror.  

> >>a_svirn:
> How can you tell?

Betsy Hp:
Because I had such a firm idea of who Snape was pre-DH.  I was wrong, 
and post-DH, Snape turned out to be a completely different beastie.  
But I know *my* Snape would not be happy with the actual Snape, 
because I know my Snape.  I don't really know the actual canon!Snape 
all that well.  I kind of don't want to. :)

Betsy Hp




From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Jun  9 00:59:39 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:59:39 -0000
Subject: 'Deathbed Confession' / Ron's  H-H insecurity/Did Severus Murder/Did DD Like
Message-ID: <g2hv9r+cu61@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183176

Steve/bboyminn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183120>:

<< The only way was a death bed confession or dying declaration. Snape
would have nothing to gain at the moment of death from lies. Also, we
know the Penseive doesn't lie. Memories can be altered or blocked out,
but they can never be lies; they are fully objective. >>

How Harry could believe Snape -- Pensieve memories, yes. But, as
others have mentioned, Snape didn't have to die to put his memories
into a Pensieve. Deathbed confession, no. A person who is willing to
die for a cause HAS something to gain at the moment of death: success
for his cause.

Harry would have believed anything Snape told him under Veritaserum,
because Harry hasn't read the bit on JKR's website about different
ways to defeat Veritaserum, e.g. Transfigure it (wandlessly) into
something else while it is between lips and throat.

Harry would also believe Dumbledore's portrait telling him: "Severus
killed me at my request. In fact, at my insistence, as he refused when
I merely requested. I had to remind him that I was already dying from
the curse in my hand before he consented to kill me."

happyjoeysmiley wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183121>:

<< Why did Ron feel insecure of Harry/Hermione's friendship despite
obvious hints (like, say, Hermione being absolutely comfortable about
Harry's love interests in Cho/Ginny or, say, Harry never worrying
about Hermione's letter to Krum)?  >>

Ron is extremely obtuse about relationships and wouldn't have known
that those were 'hints' even if he had noticed them happening.

Zanooda wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183142>:

<< Just out of curiosity, how do you know that Snape committed 
murder? >>

I don't recall any canon nor even JKR statement that Severus committed
murder, but I am sure he did. I believe Voldemort required all his
Death Eaters to commit a murder (as part of a group of murderers) to
prove they aren't wimps, to earn their Dark Mark, to assure them that
turning their cloaks would not get them in good with the Ministry
(which would want to send them to Azkaban for murder). 

Voldemort being Voldemort, he probably just killed the ones who
refused to do it and the ones who set out to do it but failed. 

There may have been a few serving him who were too valuable to risk
loosing their services in that manner, such as spies or saboteurs who
were valuable because of their position in highly secret parts of the
Ministry. I'm sure he valued Severus as a potions genius, but I don't
think he valued Severus enough to spare him from murdering like
everybody else.

Sandy wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183147>:

<< I don't think Dumbledore *liked* Snape - (snip) He was a tool to
Dumbledore; nothing more. All my opinion of course. >>

Until we got the garbage with Grindelwald and Arianna, it seemed
possible that DD never cared about a fellow individual human being
until he got to know Harry. (I imagine it's still possible to 'like'
some people without caring about them, in rather the same way one
likes carnations or hardwood floors or Van Gogh paintings - as
something that makes one's own life more pleasant. I think that sense,
DD eventually came to like SS, long long after he came to trust him
completely.)

It could have been an interesting story, how someone who had never
felt any kind of love learned to preach that love is more powerful
than might or magic, and to preach virtues such as helping each other,
and give his own life to protect others. 





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 02:40:53 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:40:53 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2976t+93rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2i57l+vrtg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183177

Mike:
We've had a recent thread that mourns the passing of Snape. I don't,
but that led to this query. In the interest of full disclosure, I am
a Marauder fan and Sirius Black is my favorite character. So I am
naturally biased towards despising one Severus Snape. OK, now on to
the show. ;-)

Alla:
Ooooo, coming back from vacation and I see this thread. It had been 
some time since I shared how much I loved Severus Snape, so yes, sure 
I think it is just about time to do that again.
When Snape died I was choosing which music from my favorite cartoon I 
should put on to celebrate that event and was afraid that Nagini 
would be poisoned from tasting all that venom in Snape. And of course 
I am Harry and Sirius fan. Enough said. 

Mike:
JKR admitted Snape was "a gift of a character", and I'll second that.
<SNIP>
Alla:
Absolutely.

 Mike:
In that respect, I too liked Severus Snape. I too wanted to know why
he was the way he was. I even color myself slightly disappointed that
his love for Lily was the *only* driving force that propelled him to
do what he did for Harry and the good side.
<SNIP>

Alla:

I was thrilled that I saw Snape tearing apart Lily's picture and 
crying that tears. See I said many times that JKR satisfied me with 
Snape's character's arc despite the fact that I did not get evil 
Snape and this is honest to goodness truth. BUT I am not sure if I 
ever mentioned that I was tiny bit nervous that Snape's character arc 
will end up in a way that will force me respect him.
What I am trying to say is that I know really well that usually Snape 
like characters are my favorite characters ever, if I get the type in 
the book I am reading and if character ends up the way I suspect 
Betsy and Magpie wanted him to end up, then I am not only respecting 
the character but empathize with him a great deal.

I think deep inside I felt that Snape did not deserve to end up that 
way, whether alive or dead after what he did to Harry. Heee, was I 
afraid that I will like Snape again at the end after all? Maybe. Not 
as character, I always liked him as character, but if he was "real 
person".
Thank goodness that his death scene was not the same as Urte de 
Miravall from Arbonne.
And before anybody asks yes sure I give Snape credit for all his 
heroism, on the intellectual level I get all this I really do.

But for me and for me only to see that Snape changed, really and 
truly changed I would need to see just that ? him accepting Harry. 
Please keep in mind  that this is strictly in response to Mike's 
question whether I **like** Snape. I know how hard for Snape dear 
would be to accept Harry, etc, but if he would have acknowledged 
Harry as his own person, for me it would mean that I have to respect 
Snape, to know that he did the hardest thing ever, he looked at Harry 
with different eyes and saw his true self. THAT would mean that with 
gritted teeth my answer would be yes, I do like Snape.
All his heroic deeds in the name of Lily were of course heroic deeds 
and yes, I saw that he changed some ( saving Lupin, etc)
But to me Snape did not change in what matters, what truly matters 
for me. And not because I am Harry's fan, but because this was the 
conflict that played before my eyes, if that makes sense.

Mike:
<SNIP>
You see, I'm curious. I could never understand the attraction. I
guessed, as did practically all of us, that Snape was ultimately on
the good side. But there were too many things about him for me to get
past to like him. I didn't take Lupinlore's approach that his
teaching was child abuse, but I did agree with Alla that it was
abhorrent behavior. And though I laughed at some of his wittier
lines, that didn't supplant my dislike for the overall character.

Alla:

Thanks dear. Funnily as I mentioned before, I do understand 
attraction to Snape, after book 1 I was liking him myself, but well, 
that changed . I

Mike:
<SNIP>
 I have a particular revulsion for the Snape in PoA, in the Shreiking
Shack scene. I've expounded on that enough, I won't continue to bore
you. Funnily enough, I was most entertained by Snape in PoA, too.

Alla:
See, hurt-comfort again for me. I was  disgusted, but for quite some 
time I felt a great deal of pity for Snape in Shack.

Mike:
I get that some people identify with Snape, just like lots of people
identified with Harry and I identified with Sirius. Did that make you
like Severus, or understand him, or both?

Please, explain to me the attraction!
<SNIP>

Alla:
Heee, well as I said I cannot really explain the attraction, but I 
can understand some reasoning for it at least.
But I have a related thought here. I wonder what does it mean to 
identify with the character. Does it mean that reader feels that in 
the similar situation they would have acted the same way? I mean it 
is not the same as liking the character, right? To me at least it is 
so not. I adore Sirius' character, but I certainly would not have 
acted the same way in many instances as he would have. What does it 
mean for you to identify with your favorite character? Not just Snape 
or Sirius, anybody. If one feels that there are some things that 
reader would have done the same way  as character, does it counts as 
at least partial identification?
Like I think I would definitely do everything under the moon to 
protect a child that I love, but heee, I would think things over 
first.
It is very interesting. What about Harry for example? I love his 
character, but identify with him? I am not sure. I wished he would 
survive and be happy, but did I want to do all the things he did? Um, 
not really.  
JMO,
Alla






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 03:48:03 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:48:03 -0000
Subject: 'Deathbed Confession' / Ron's  H-H insecurity/Did Severus Murder/Did DD Like
In-Reply-To: <g2hv9r+cu61@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2i95j+911p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183178

Zanooda wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183142>:
> 
> << Just out of curiosity, how do you know that Snape committed 
murder? >>

Catlady replied: 
> I don't recall any canon nor even JKR statement that Severus
committed murder, but I am sure he did. I believe Voldemort required
all his Death Eaters to commit a murder (as part of a group of
murderers) to prove they aren't wimps, to earn their Dark Mark, to
assure them that turning their cloaks would not get them in good with
the Ministry (which would want to send them to Azkaban for murder). 
> 
> Voldemort being Voldemort, he probably just killed the ones who
refused to do it and the ones who set out to do it but failed. 
> 
> There may have been a few serving him who were too valuable to risk
loosing their services in that manner, such as spies or saboteurs who
were valuable because of their position in highly secret parts of the
Ministry. I'm sure he valued Severus as a potions genius, but I don't
think he valued Severus enough to spare him from murdering like
everybody else. <snip>

Carol responds:

But, as you say, we have no canonical evidence and no evidence from
interviews that Snape ever killed anybody. I doubt that he'd be so
concerned about the state of his soul after killing DD had he done so.
And DD asks him how many people he's watched die, not how many people
he has killed.

The GoF Pensieve scene with Karkaroff suggests that at least some of
the top DEs had specialized jobs: some specialized in torture, some in
murder, some (Mulciber, for example) in the Imperius Curse, some
(notably Rookwood) were spies. Snape, too, seems to have been a spy,
and he was sent to apply for the DADA post for that reason.

I don't think that Voldemort routinely required new DEs to commit
murder as an initiation. Draco was a special case--Voldemort was
punishing the Malfoys and expected him to die in the attempt. (Not
that he didn't want DD dead, but he expected Snape to do it when the
boy failed.) I doubt that Regulus was required to commit murder, either.

Carol, who suspects that Voldemort recognized Snape's talents just as
Lucius Malfoy did and put them to what he considered good use (deadly
potions and possibly some useful spells, as well as spying), leaving
murder to the likes of Dolohov and Travers




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 04:10:57 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:10:57 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2i57l+vrtg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2iagh+j7t1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183179

Alla:
<snip>
> But for me and for me only to see that Snape changed, really and 
truly changed I would need to see just that ? him accepting Harry. 
Please keep in mind  that this is strictly in response to Mike's 
question whether I **like** Snape. I know how hard for Snape dear
would be to accept Harry, etc, but if he would have acknowledged Harry
as his own person, for me it would mean that I have to respect Snape,
to know that he did the hardest thing ever, he looked at Harry with
different eyes and saw his true self. <snip>

Carol responds:

I don't know whether Snape could ever come to accept Harry as a
person, but he certainly accepted him as the Chosen One and made sure
with his last bit of magic that Harry got the message from Dumbledore
about sacrificing himself. (Of course, Harry got a lot more than
that-- memories that showed Snape's loyalty so that Harry would acept
the message. I'm not sure, but I think that on some level, Snape
wanted Harry to understand him, not just for the sake of the "pig to
the slaughter" memory, but for his (Snape's) own sake. And, if he
cared what Harry thought, that's a step toward understanding and
respecting him. Certainly, he respected Harry's sacrifice. Maybe he
even saw it as a reflection of Lily's.)

And then there's the matter of asking (okay, ordering :-) ) Harry to
look into his eyes. All this time, Snape has been looking at Harry and
seeing only James, even when he looked into his eyes. This time, he
looked into Harry's eyes and saw Lily--not Lily herself, but Lily *in*
Harry.

I think, given Snape's personality, that's as much of an
acknowledgement that Harry isn't James (and therefore isn't just the
arrogant little rulebreaker Snape has perceived him as being) as
you're going to get.

Carol, for whom Snape's death is no laughing matter





From jmnabers at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 11:24:12 2008
From: jmnabers at yahoo.com (jmnabers)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:24:12 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:  DH 22, The Deathly Hallows
Message-ID: <g2j3ss+inqv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183180

CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter 22, 
The Deathly Hallows

The chapter begins as Harry, Ron, and Hermione make their escape from 
the Death Eaters at the Lovegood household. Hermione casts protective 
spells over them as they return to their campsite; Harry and Ron both 
recognize her genius at getting them out of yet another tight spot.

The discussion quickly turns to the wealth of new questions that 
Xenophilius has raised: Is Luna still alive? Was the trip to the 
Lovegood household just a waste of time? Is there any truth in the 
story of the Deathly Hallows?

It is the last question that sparks the most vehement discussion. 
Hermione, predictably, finds the entire story implausible if not 
ridiculous. Ron disagrees, pointing out that lying under pressure is 
more difficult than she can imagine. As they argue, the three start 
to put together bits and pieces of information that might support (or 
in Hermione's case, disprove) the story of the three brothers.

Hermione is adamant that there can't be any truth to any of the 
magical items, referring to the Resurrection Stone while making 
finger quotation marks to show her disdain. Harry realizes that talk 
of living with the dead frightens her and he changes the subject to 
the grave they found in Godric's Hollow.

Hermione, with Kreacher's help, has discovered that the Peverell 
family was pure-blood but has been extinct in the male line for 
centuries. Harry suddenly remembers that Marvolo Gaunt, Voldemort's 
grandfather, claimed to be a descendent of the Peverell family. In an 
intuitive leap, Harry speculates that Marvolo's ring must contain the 
Resurrection Stone; furthermore, he realizes that Voldemort must not 
know about the powerful Deathly Hallows if he risked destroying one 
by turning it into a horcrux.

Harry, completely convinced that the Deathly Hallows are real, is 
sure that the key to defeating Voldemort is to find the 3 objects and 
become the master of Death. He realizes that he must be a descendent 
of Ignotus Peverell and that his invisibility cloak must be one of 
the Hallows. He also is convinced that the snitch from Dumbledore 
must contain the Resurrection Stone in the form of the destroyed 
horcrux.

Harry realizes he would only need the Elder Wand to complete the 
trio. He intuitively understands that Voldemort must be after the 
Elder Wand, too. Voldemort, not knowing its true power, wants it only 
for its alleged invincibility: the ultimate weapon that will destroy 
Harry.

Hermione tries valiantly to convince him that none of it can possibly 
be true, but Harry will not be swayed. He realizes there is some 
truth in Xenophilius's assessment of her as close-minded.

Weeks pass. Harry can think only of the Hallows; Hermione and Ron can 
think only of the horcruxes. Harry's scar begins to prickle again, 
but the images he sees are fuzzy and blurred. Finally, one night in 
March, they are able to pick up the Potterwatch program.

Harry, Ron, and Hermione are heartened to hear the voices of old 
friends that are supporting them. However, there is also distressing 
news. Ted Tonks has been murdered, Dean Thomas is missing, and Hagrid 
is on the run. As they hear the voices of their friends, the three 
are overcome with sadness, gratitude, and shame. Finally, Fred's 
voice appears and Harry laughs for the first time in weeks.

As the program ends, Harry's excitement prompts him to make a 
terrible error. He utters the taboo name, Voldemort, and they are 
instantaneously surrounded by Death Eaters.


Discussion Questions:
1) Why does Hermione do her best to protect Xenophilius from the 
Death Eaters? Is it only because of her feelings of friendship for 
Luna? Or did she, like Harry, recognize his desperation to save his 
child?

2) Why does Hermione consider the trips to Godric's Hollow and the 
Lovegood household "a waste of time"?

3) Harry realizes that his "talk of living with dead people" had 
scared of Hermione. Why is living with dead people comforting to 
Harry and yet frightening to Hermione?

4) Why is Harry able to put the story together so quickly? It says 
his "imagination was racing ahead, far beyond Ron and Hermione's." Is 
it imagination, experience, or something else that allows Harry to 
make the intuitive leaps that other cannot?

5) When Harry realizes that Voldemort must also want the Elder Wand, 
it "extinguishes" all of his hope and happiness. Why?

6) If Harry is right, Dumbledore did not tell him the secret to being 
the master of Death because he needed Harry to discover it for 
himself. Does this agree with Dumbledore's previous treatment of 
Harry? How would Harry be different if Dumbledore did tell him what 
he needed rather than letting Harry work it out for himself? What 
role do Ron and Hermione play in his discoveries?

7) Harry wishes his scar would burn again because "for the first time 
ever, he and Voldemort were united in wanting the very same thing." 
When his visions do return, they are blurred. Why are the visions 
different now than they have been in the past?

8) Harry feels that Ron and Hermione are obsessed with the horcuxes. 
She accuses him of being obsessed with the Hallows and tells him that 
they are "the ones trying to do what Dumbledore wanted us to do!" Why 
are they at an impasse over the way to proceed? Why does Harry "give 
up on her"?

9) As Harry retreats into his own imagination, Ron starts to take 
charge. Is Ron only capable of leadership because Harry is distracted 
or is it something else?

10)If Harry is so determined that finding the Elder Wand is the way 
to proceed, why do they waste months without making any real 
progress? What, if anything, is achieved in these long months of 
camping?

11)What is it about the Potterwatch broadcast that makes Harry feel 
more connected to the world?

12) Why do Lupin's words cause Harry to feel "a mixture of gratitude 
and shame"?

13) Why does Lupin say that Harry's instincts are "good and nearly 
always right"? Are these words in reference to the past, or are they 
meant to foreshadow events to come?

14) Is the rush of emotions Harry felt while listening to Potterwatch 
responsible for his reckless saying of Voldemort's name? If not, what 
causes him to break the taboo that he's kept for months?

jmnabers


NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see
"HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Jun  9 12:14:16 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:14:16 -0000
Subject: Reactions (was Re: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2i57l+vrtg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2j6qo+ka68@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183181

 
> Alla:
> Ooooo, coming back from vacation and I see this thread. It had been 
> some time since I shared how much I loved Severus Snape, so yes, sure 
> I think it is just about time to do that again.
> When Snape died I was choosing which music from my favorite cartoon I 
> should put on to celebrate that event and was afraid that Nagini 
> would be poisoned from tasting all that venom in Snape. And of course 
> I am Harry and Sirius fan. Enough said. 


Potioncat:
Oh, Alla, this is salt in a wound! It's bad enough that you're so happy 
that Snape died a horrible death, but cartoon music?

Sigh.

The only death I cheered was Nagini's. I was glad she was dead and 
really thrilled that Neville killed her.

I don't remember how I felt about Bella's, but MovieHero!Molly was sort 
of off-putting. I haven't re-read that scene, so we'll see how it comes 
across next time. 

Off hand, I don't remember if we saw any other bad guys die. Well, we 
saw LV wipe out a few in a tantrum, but I'm not sure we knew who they 
were.

I remember being absolutely shocked by DD's death. Stunned! That one 
took a while to work out. Fred's came in the middle of the fray, and I 
had to keep moving, just like Harry.

Sirius----well, by the time his death came, I was relieved. I was so 
glad it had not been Minerva or Arthur or Hagrid. I remember thinking 
something along the lines of "Oh good. No one important or even 
likable."

How did the rest of you react to the deaths in the series?

Potioncat, looking forward to having enough time to actually respond to 
Mike's Did you Like Snape? thread.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 12:56:49 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:56:49 -0000
Subject: Reactions (was Re: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2j6qo+ka68@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2j9ah+jddr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183182

> Potioncat:
> Oh, Alla, this is salt in a wound! It's bad enough that you're so 
happy 
> that Snape died a horrible death, but cartoon music?
> 
> Sigh.

Alla:

Sorry my dear. I do hope you know that while I indeed was happy ( one 
cannot help how one feels right?) that this character was dead, at 
the same time I most certainly sympathized with some Snape fans ( and 
you are most **definitely** among those people whom I felt sorry for)
knowing that people will be upset. And this is truth as well. I mean 
I was soooo upset when Sirius died, so why wouldn't I feel bad for 
some people who would mourn the death of one fictional character, 
since I know how it feels?

I remember talking to somebody offlist shortly before DH was out, we 
were again trying to guess if our favorite theories will come true or 
not and I was saying that even though I really really hope her 
predictions will not come true, I will feel bad for her and she was 
saying same thing.

But heeee, at the same time each of us was really hoping that other's 
predictions were wrong.

Also keep in mind that I read spoilers, lots of them before I even 
started the book, so I knew that Snape dies and how he does it before 
I started, therefore maybe if I read that scene for the first time 
without knowing what happen, maybe I would be at least a little bit 
upset, you know?

Potioncat:
<SNIP>
> Sirius----well, by the time his death came, I was relieved. I was 
so 
> glad it had not been Minerva or Arthur or Hagrid. I remember 
thinking 
> something along the lines of "Oh good. No one important or even 
> likable."

Alla:

Right and some people were happy that Harry does not have that 
reckless godfather anymore. Which is their absolute right to feel 
that way and be happy about it, etc.

Potioncat: 
> How did the rest of you react to the deaths in the series?
> <SNIP>

Alla:

Dobby - cried, which was probably biggest surprise for me. 
Dumbledore - well, heeee, I think my first reaction was anger, a 
great deal of it.

I will try to remember more.






From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Mon Jun  9 15:46:18 2008
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:46:18 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:  DH 22, The Deathly Hallows
In-Reply-To: <g2j3ss+inqv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2jj8a+m9dk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183183

> "jmnabers" wrote:
>
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter 22, The Deathly Hallows
> ...
> The discussion quickly turns to ... Is there any truth in the 
> story of the Deathly Hallows?
> 
> Ron disagrees, pointing out that lying under pressure is 
> more difficult than she can imagine. ...

> Harry suddenly remembers that Marvolo Gaunt, Voldemort's 
> grandfather, claimed to be a descendent of the Peverell family. 
> ... Harry speculates that Marvolo's ring must contain the 
> Resurrection Stone; 
> 
> Harry, ... realizes that he must be a descendent 
> of Ignotus Peverell and that his invisibility cloak must be one of 
> the Hallows. He also is convinced that the snitch from Dumbledore 
> must contain the Resurrection Stone in the form of the destroyed 
> horcrux.
> 
> Harry realizes he would only need the Elder Wand to complete the 
> trio. He intuitively understands that Voldemort must be after the 
> Elder Wand, too. ...
> 
> Weeks pass. Harry can think only of the Hallows; Hermione and Ron 
> can think only of the horcruxes. ... Finally, one night in 
> March, they are able to pick up the Potterwatch program.
> 
> Discussion Questions:
> 1) Why does Hermione do her best to protect Xenophilius from the 
> Death Eaters? Is it only because of her feelings of friendship for 
> Luna? Or did she, like Harry, recognize his desperation to save 
his 
> child?

1) Aussie: Because Luna is their friend and also to protect the 
ignorant (Mr Lovegood doesn't know how close Harry & co are to 
destroying Voldemort)
> 
> 2) Why does Hermione consider the trips to Godric's Hollow and the 
> Lovegood household "a waste of time"?

2) Aussie: Neither trip helped them get closer to destroying the 
Horcruxes, which she sees as their main mission. She has given up 
her parents and relationships with others to go this lonely course.
> 
> 3) Harry realizes that his "talk of living with dead people" had 
> scared of Hermione. Why is living with dead people comforting to 
> Harry and yet frightening to Hermione?

3) Aussie: It could be because many muggle born have been targetted. 
Catermole with Dementors around was about to be damned to Azkaban or 
worse with her there seeing other Muggle borns taken away from 
Umbridge's court. She could only sit passively and watch the 
suffering. 
Also, she would have had a sheltered homelife before meeting Harry. 
Death wasn't high on her wish list (since she couldn't see 
Thestrells in OOTP, we know she never saw anyone die prior to that 
time)
> 
> 4) Why is Harry able to put the story together so quickly? It says 
> his "imagination was racing ahead, far beyond Ron & Hermione's."  
> Is it imagination, experience,or something else that allows Harry  
> to make the intuitive leaps that other cannot?

4) Aussie: Harry was more intimately related to the Gaunt/Voldemort 
experiences.  
> 
> 5) When Harry realizes that Voldemort must also want the Elder  
> Wand, it "extinguishes" all of his hope and happiness. Why?

5) Aussie: This whole book is Hallows versus Horcruxes. and now 
Harry learns that Voldemort is protected (or soon will be) by both. 
How many times does he have to face this guy getting more and more 
invincible?
> 
> 6) If Harry is right, Dumbledore did not tell him the secret to 
> being the master of Death because he needed Harry to discover it 
> for himself. Does this agree with Dumbledore's previous treatment 
> of Harry? How would Harry be different if Dumbledore did tell him 
> what he needed rather than letting Harry work it out for himself? 
> What role do Ron and Hermione play in his discoveries?

6) Aussie: Dumbledore didn't need Harry to follow orders. He needed 
Harry to be a willing sacrifice in the final battle. That could not 
come from being told to do it, but evolving into the sacrifice.
> 
> 7) Harry wishes his scar would burn again because "for the first 
> time ever, he and Voldemort were united in wanting the very same 
> thing." When his visions do return, they are blurred. Why are the 
> visions different now than they have been in the past?

7) Aussie: Until Voldemort has a highly emotional stimulous, visions 
are low powered. Emotional rage and passion would shout visions 
accross to Harry.
> 
> 8) Harry feels that Ron and Hermione are obsessed with the 
> horcuxes. She accuses him of being obsessed with the Hallows and 
> tells him that they are "the ones trying to do what Dumbledore 
> wanted us to do!" Why are they at an impasse over the way to 
> proceed? Why does Harry "give up on her"?

8) Aussie: When warriers don't have an enemy to fight, they fight 
each other. 
> 
> 9) As Harry retreats into his own imagination, Ron starts to take 
> charge. Is Ron only capable of leadership because Harry is 
> distracted or is it something else?

9) Aussie: Ron may have matured when he was able to destroy the 
locket Horcrux. Plus, there is no hope to put things right with his 
family or the community he grew up in without Harry to fight 
Voldemort.
> 
> 10)If Harry is so determined that finding the Elder Wand is the 
> way to proceed, why do they waste months without making any real 
> progress? What, if anything, is achieved in these long months of 
> camping?

10) Aussie: Many times JKR stalls to wrap things up nicely in the 
end of the schooling year. The scenes that follow this chapter rush 
forward quickly. Weather and tempo need to be right to finish the 
story.
> 
> 11)What is it about the Potterwatch broadcast that makes Harry 
> feel more connected to the world?

11) Aussie: Some familiar voices (twins, Lee, Lupin) help a lot. It 
is lonely out in front.
> 
> 12) Why do Lupin's words cause Harry to feel "a mixture of 
> gratitude and shame"?

12) Aussie: He still doesn't know if he will ever see Lupin alive 
again, and his last words to him were spoken in anger. This, the 
sole surviving close friend of his father's.
> 
> 13) Why does Lupin say that Harry's instincts are "good and nearly 
> always right"? Are these words in reference to the past, or are 
> they meant to foreshadow events to come?

13) Aussie: Reference to the disarming spell against Stan Shunpike. 
The guy names Harry as his son's godfather, so doesn't doubt Harry's 
role or ability too much.
> 
> 14) Is the rush of emotions Harry felt while listening to 
> Potterwatch responsible for his reckless saying of Voldemort's 
> name? If not, what causes him to break the taboo that he's kept 
> for months?

14) Aussie: For whatever reason, JKR was able to stop the hiatus and 
get the horcrux/Hallows hunt going agian.

EXTRA QUESTION:
15) Harry would know Dumbledore had the Ring and knowledge of the 
cloak. What implications does this have? 
 




From winterfell7 at hotmail.com  Mon Jun  9 15:42:44 2008
From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:42:44 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2iagh+j7t1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2jj1k+ohm2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183184


> Carol:
> 
> I don't know whether Snape could ever come to accept Harry as a
> person, but he certainly accepted him as the Chosen One and made sure
> with his last bit of magic that Harry got the message from Dumbledore
> about sacrificing himself. (Of course, Harry got a lot more than
> that-- memories that showed Snape's loyalty so that Harry would acept
> the message. I'm not sure, but I think that on some level, Snape
> wanted Harry to understand him, not just for the sake of the "pig to
> the slaughter" memory, but for his (Snape's) own sake. And, if he
> cared what Harry thought, that's a step toward understanding and
> respecting him. Certainly, he respected Harry's sacrifice. Maybe he
> even saw it as a reflection of Lily's.)

Winterfell:

I like the idea of Snape respecting Harry's sacrifice and possibly 
seeing it as a reflection of Lily's sacrifice. That would seem like 
Harry and his mother had a common character trait of love and sacrifice 
for those he cared for. From Harry's pov, there were things worth 
sacrificing for and he went willingly to do what needed to be done to 
preserve and protect those things and people he loved. Snape IMO did 
admire or at least respect that quality of Harry's personality, as it 
was much like Lily's as well.  And if Snape was able to look directly 
into Harry's eyes and not see James anymore, it was IMO an acceptance 
of Harry as a worthwhile person too.





From CatMcNulty at comcast.net  Mon Jun  9 15:30:06 2008
From: CatMcNulty at comcast.net (Cat)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:30:06 -0000
Subject: Photographs vs Portraits
Message-ID: <g2ji9u+gcmm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183185

Greetings All!

If this query has been answered previously, I apologize for asking it
again. But, I do need some helpful insight from HP scholars! A friend
of mine who is reading the books for the first time asked me a question
that had not occured to me ... Why can paintings/portraits move, talk
and interact(they have sentience), whereas photographs only move but
not talk (just amimated images)?

Is there anything in canon or from a JKR interview that might shed
light on this?

Or maybe one of you could help me out with a theory?

Thanks!
Cat




From marshsundeen at hotmail.com  Mon Jun  9 16:44:49 2008
From: marshsundeen at hotmail.com (marshallsundeen)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:44:49 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:  DH 22, The Deathly Hallows Responses from BMS
In-Reply-To: <g2j3ss+inqv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2jmm1+lsik@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183186

In response to Jmnabers questions:

> Discussion Questions:
> 1) Why does Hermione do her best to protect Xenophilius from the
> Death Eaters? Is it only because of her feelings of friendship for
> Luna? Or did she, like Harry, recognize his desperation to save his
> child?

BMS:  Hermione realizes that Xenophilius' actions are purely out of
love for his daughter.  Being close to Luna would also drive a need
to protect him.


> 2) Why does Hermione consider the trips to Godric's Hollow and the
> Lovegood household "a waste of time"?

BMS:  Hermione is of the belief that what cannot be easily proven is
not true.  She is also biased against the Lovegoods' naivete about
creatures in the world.


> 3) Harry realizes that his "talk of living with dead people" had
> scared of Hermione. Why is living with dead people comforting to
> Harry and yet frightening to Hermione?

BMS:  Hermione has never seen death, though she knows some who have
died.  Hermione fears that Harry would join the dead willingly and
this scares her.


> 4) Why is Harry able to put the story together so quickly? It says
> his "imagination was racing ahead, far beyond Ron and Hermione's."

BMS:  Having owned the cloak Harry is able to see the similarities
easily.  Harry was looking for understanding of Dumbledore's actions
and this fit.


> Is it imagination, experience, or something else that allows Harry
> to make the intuitive leaps that other cannot?

BMS:  Harry has learned not to discount the unbelievable.  His
experience helps him keep an open mind--and his connection to
Voldemort gives him a perspective the others cannot understand.


> 5) When Harry realizes that Voldemort must also want the Elder
> Wand, it "extinguishes" all of his hope and happiness. Why?

BMS:  The realization that Voldemort must also want the Elder Wand is
a reality check for Harry.  It brings him back to the fact that
Harry's future ends with a confrontation with Voldemort.  Voldemort
will be tougher to beat with the Elder Wand.


> 6) If Harry is right, Dumbledore did not tell him the secret to
> being the master of Death because he needed Harry to discover it
> for himself. Does this agree with Dumbledore's previous treatment
> of Harry? How would Harry be different if Dumbledore did tell him
> what he needed rather than letting Harry work it out for himself?
> What role do Ron and Hermione play in his discoveries?

BMS:  Dumbledore has always allowed Harry to work problems out for
himself.  Dumbledore gave Harry advice to rely on Ron and Hermione
for help because the three together have powers, knowledge and wisdom
that Harry alone does not have.  This has made Harry smarter?needing
to see connections and relationships that he may not see otherwise.
This kept Harry from accepting what authorities (or Hermione) told
him as gospel and made him seek truth.


> 7) Harry wishes his scar would burn again because "for the first
> time ever, he and Voldemort were united in wanting the very same
> thing." When his visions do return, they are blurred. Why are the
> visions different now than they have been in the past?

BMS:  Harry's own obsession with the Hallows keeps him from receiving
clear messages?Voldemort's obsession with the Elder Wand works
against the connection also.


> 8) Harry feels that Ron and Hermione are obsessed with the
> horcuxes. She accuses him of being obsessed with the Hallows and
> tells him that they are "the ones trying to do what Dumbledore
> wanted us to do!" Why are they at an impasse over the way to
> proceed? Why does Harry "give up on her"?

BMS:  Harry is obsessed with the Deathly Hallows.  He sees the
Hallows as a means to connect with those long dead and the mystery of
it fascinates Harry.  Ron and Hermione see Harry as becoming
distanced from the Horcrux search and Hermione sees Harry as focusing
on something she doubts is true.


> 9) As Harry retreats into his own imagination, Ron starts to take
> charge. Is Ron only capable of leadership because Harry is
> distracted or is it something else?

BMS:  Ron wants to prove to Harry and Hermione that he is again
committed to the quest.  He wants to make up for leaving by showing
leadership and keeping the trio moving forward.


> 10) If Harry is so determined that finding the Elder Wand is the
> way to proceed, why do they waste months without making any real
> progress? What, if anything, is achieved in these long months of
> camping?

BMS:  It takes the hearing of the Potterwatch program to move the
trio forward.  Being isolated, the three seem to forget that others
are out there fighting for good and this seems to jar them back to
action.


> 11)What is it about the Potterwatch broadcast that makes Harry feel
> more connected to the world?

BMS:   Again, it reminds Harry that others are on his side.  There is
more at stake than the trio's future?the whole Wizarding World depends on the successful defeat of Voldemort.


> 12) Why do Lupin's words cause Harry to feel "a mixture of
> gratitude and shame"?

BMS:  Lupin's words let Harry know that he has been forgiven.  Lupin
is acknowledging that Harry was right in scolding him.  Lupin had
been afraid to be a father.  Harry's words obviously jolted Lupin back to his responsibilities.  Harry is grateful that Lupin has forgiven him and ashamed that he had to be so harsh with his once mentor.


> 13) Why does Lupin say that Harry's instincts are "good and nearly
> always right"? Are these words in reference to the past, or are
> they meant to foreshadow events to come?

BMS:  Lupin is acknowledging that Harry was correct about Lupin's
fear of fatherhood.  This does remind Harry to listen to his instinct
in the future.


> 14) Is the rush of emotions Harry felt while listening to
> Potterwatch responsible for his reckless saying of Voldemort's
> name? If not, what causes him to break the taboo that he's kept for
> months?

BMS:  Harry was so moved listening to Potterwatch that deep down he
wanted to prompt action.  While it seems like a stupid thing to do?it
moved the whole story forward and brought the trio out of isolation.










From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 17:57:38 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:57:38 -0000
Subject: Photographs vs Portraits
In-Reply-To: <g2ji9u+gcmm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2jqui+4u2k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183187

---  "Cat" <CatMcNulty at ...> wrote:
>
> Greetings All!
> 
> ... A friend
> of mine who is reading the books for the first time asked me
> a question ... Why can paintings/portraits move, talk and 
> interact(they have sentience), whereas photographs only move
> but not talk (just amimated images)?
> 
> Is there anything in canon or from a JKR interview that might
> shed light on this?
> 
> Or maybe one of you could help me out with a theory?
> 
> Thanks!
> Cat
>

bboyminn:

First, in a manner of speaking, the portrait characters are 
like actors, they can give some impression of the character
but they are not that character fully realized. 

It use an analogy, photographs are like actors in a TV 
commercial, you understand who they are instantly (the stupid
husband, the frustrated housewife, the clueless parents) but
however you perceive them is superficial. They are more like
caricatures than characters.

Standard painted portraits are more like actors in a TV show.
You get a better sense of the character but they are far from
fully realized. You get a better sense of the person, but 
they lack any real substance. Life goes a little too easily
and simply for them. Notice that Mrs. Black's portrait is 
rather limited. Also notice that some of the portraits at the
hospital, while they are able to talk, are not that bright. 

Hogwarts' portraits are more like actors in a movie or a stage
play. Just as an actor can fully inhabit a character and make
it very real and believable within the context of that movie
or play, there does some a point, if you probe too deeply,
where the character breaks down. No matter how convincingly
the actor plays his role, he is limited by the script and his
personal knowledge of that character. 

Hogwart's portraits are more fully realized, according to JKR,
because of the strong magic at Hogwarts and because the 
Headmasters leave an imprint of themselves at Hogwarts that is
able to enhance the apparent reality of the portrait. 

But even the best portrait when probed at depth will break down.
Just like an actor in a stage play, the illusion can only be
carried just so far. JKR said that if Harry has access to a
portrait of his parents or of Dumbledore, he would find it
very unsatisfying because the essence and depth of the true 
person is not really there. 

Now regarding this last bit, I swear I read this somewhere in 
a JKR interview and have fallen back on this information many
time, but I have never been able to find the interview or
verify it, so take it with a grain of salt.

I remember reading that JKR said that part of the process of
creating a 'living' portrait require some of the physical 
essence of the subject of the portrait - some skin, hair, a 
drop of blood. It is from this physical essence of the actual
person that the portrait draws its knowledge of the character. 

That explains part of the magic that allows portraits to be 
as 'living' as they are. But again, JKR has clearly said that
the portrait is not the person. But merely a very good, but
none the less superficial representation of the person.

Does that help?

Steve/bboyminn




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 21:40:11 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:40:11 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:  DH 22, The Deathly Hallows
In-Reply-To: <g2j3ss+inqv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2k7vr+54pv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183188

jmnabers wrote:
>
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter
22, The Deathly Hallows
<snip>
> Hermione, with Kreacher's help, has discovered that the Peverell 
> family was pure-blood but has been extinct in the male line for 
> centuries. <snip>

Carol responds:
Great summary, jmnabers. I just want to make two little comments.
First, I had to re-re-re-reread the chapter even though I've recently
reread it to realize that you were referring to "Nature's Nobility,"
the Wizarding genealogy that Hermione "borrowed" from Kreacher here.

jmnabers: 
<snip> He utters the taboo name, Voldemort, and they are 
instantaneously surrounded by Death Eaters.

Carol again:
Snatchers, right? Not quite the same thing. I'm wondering now whether
these assistant DEs existed in VW1 and were included in Lupin's
otherwise inexplicable estimate of the original Order's being
outnumbered twenty to one (OoP). However, since Muggle-borns hadn't
yet been declared Undesireables and the MoM hadn't yet been taken over
by Voldie supporters, I'm not sure what these thuggish types would
have done at that time. In any case, only Fenrir Greyback is actually
wearing a DE robe, to my knowledge, and he clearly doesn't want the
other Snatchers to know that he has a Dark Mark. (Oops. I'm getting
ahead of the discussion here.) Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing
other people's thoughts on the matter.
> 
> Discussion Questions:
> 1) Why does Hermione do her best to protect Xenophilius from the 
Death Eaters? Is it only because of her feelings of friendship for
Luna? Or did she, like Harry, recognize his desperation to save his 
child?

Carol responds:
I think this compassion for a man who, in his weakness and
desperation, has betrayed them, is one of Hermione's most admirable
moments. I'm not sure whether it's affection for Luna or pity for
Xenophilius or understanding that Luna is *everything* to Xenophilius
or maybe just a humanitarian impulse to help the helpless on a more
personal and direct level than her (IMO wrong-headed) efforts to help
the House-Elves. Hermione has herself gone to great lengths to protect
her Muggle parents--hardly the same as betraying Harry to the DEs,
but, still, a desperate measure, depriving them of their identities
and all knowledge of her existence. Maybe, unconsciously, she
identifies with him even though she, of course, would never betray
Harry (as we see in the next chapter when she's tortured).
> 
> 2) Why does Hermione consider the trips to Godric's Hollow and the
Lovegood household "a waste of time"?

Carol:
Considering that Godric's Hollow almost cost them their lives and did
cost Harry the holly wand that Voldemort's wand can't defeat, not to
mention that it didn't take them any closer to any Horcruxes (except
Nagini), I can see why she would consider that excursion a waste of
time. All it accomplished, other than giving them a bit of knowledge
about DD's history and the Peverells, was enabling Harry to see the
memorials to his parents and to know exactly how his parents died and
enabling Voldemort to (eventually) figure out the identity of the
merry-faced thief. The trip to Xenophilius's house was almost as
dangerous and only enables them to connect the symbol she's been
wondering about and "The Tale of the Three Brothers" to objects that
she doesn't believe in and considers dangerous if real. And, of
course, she doesn't like seeing Harry sidetracked from his Horcrux quest.
> 
> 3) Harry realizes that his "talk of living with dead people" had 
scared of Hermione. Why is living with dead people comforting to Harry
and yet frightening to Hermione?

Carol responds:
I think that Harry has long since reconciled himself to the
possibility of death even though (unlike Hermione and Dumbledore), he
sees it as an ending, the cessation of existence in any form.
Hermione, who showed a similar fear of the archway in the Chamber of
Death in the MoM, and who has never lost a close friend or beloved
relative, has never faced death in the same way. The closest she has
come is her injury from Dolohov's unidentified purple-lit curse in OoP
and Ron's poisoning in HBP. IMO, she can face death on an intellectual
level and believe in some sort of afterlife (perhaps Christian--her
parents could well be church-going Anglicans for all we know), but on
an emotional level, death, and the association of the dead with the
living, scares her. (Unless, of course, we're talking about the
obviously harmless Hogwarts ghosts, which she probably read about
before encountering and therefore could face without fear.)
> 
> 4) Why is Harry able to put the story together so quickly? It says
his "imagination was racing ahead, far beyond Ron and Hermione's." Is
it imagination, experience, or something else that allows Harry to
make the intuitive leaps that other cannot?

Carol responds:
Good question! Intuitive leaps aren't common for Harry, to say the
least. Probably, his mind has dwelt on the upcoming conflict with
Voldemort and the question of what the objects that the Trio inherited
from DD could mean for so long that he's finally able to put the
pieces together (rather like DD connecting the memories in the
Pensieve and finally, belatedly, realizing that "Moody" is Barty
Crouch Jr.). Once he realizes that the cloak is real and that he owns
it, that DD wanted them to know the story of the Deathly Hallows, and
that the three brothers are the Peverells, it's not that difficult to
put all the clues together and realize that the stone is in Marvolo's
ring, which is in the Snitch, or that LV is after the Elder Wand
without knowing that it's a Hallow. Of course, Ron hasn't been
thinking about these things at all and Hermione doesn't want the
Hallows to be real and both want to keep the focus on the Horcruxes,
so it's really not surprising that Harry would make most of the
connections himself (though, to be fair, it was Hermione who made the
Peverell connection in the previous chapter).
> 
> 5) When Harry realizes that Voldemort must also want the Elder Wand,
it "extinguishes" all of his hope and happiness. Why?

Carol responds:
Another good question. I think that Harry realizes that if LV gets the
Elder Wand before he does, it won't do any good to have the other two
Hallows. They must all be in Harry's possession and control if he's to
become the Master of Death. He also realizes that the Elder Wand is
unbeatable, and if LV is its master, his chances of survival, or even
of defeating LV before he dies, are slim indeed. He thought that he
had an alternative to the dangerous and seemingly futile Horcrux
quest, and that hope has been snatched away from him.
> 
> 6) If Harry is right, Dumbledore did not tell him the secret to
being the master of Death because he needed Harry to discover it for 
himself. Does this agree with Dumbledore's previous treatment of 
Harry? How would Harry be different if Dumbledore did tell him what he
needed rather than letting Harry work it out for himself? What role do
Ron and Hermione play in his discoveries?

Carol responds:
That whole finding out for himself line strikes me as a little too
much like Glinda's words to Dorothy in the film version of "Wizard of
Oz." However, DD has implicitly encouraged Harry to figure things out
for himself since SS/PS (the Mirror of Erised). OTOH, DD could not
openly state the reasons for his gifts to Harry and his friends in a
will that would certainly be read by MoM officials, especially given
the danger that the MoM could fall to the DEs. 

Hermione's role is to make the connection to Xenophilius and the
Peverells; Ron's is to try to keep Harry focused on the Horcruxes
rather than the Hallows even though he's less skeptical than Hermione
about their existence and less focused on the potential danger.
(Dead!DD says later that he counted on Hermione to take her time
reaching any conclusions and to slow down the hunt. (I'm trying to
imagine what would have happened if Harry had decided to go to
Hogwarts prematurely and broken into DD's tomb himself. I'm sure that
Hermione would have been horrified. And Harry would not have been the
master of the wand if it hadn't been for the incident with Draco (next
chapter). Would it have done him any good to have all three Hallows
without being master of the Elder Wand? What does "Master of Death"
entail, anyway?)

> 7) Harry wishes his scar would burn again because "for the first
time ever, he and Voldemort were united in wanting the very same
thing." When his visions do return, they are blurred. Why are the
visions different now than they have been in the past?

Carol responds:
At first, I thought it had something to do with the loss of his holly
wand, but that can't be the answer because the visions regain their
clarity. Maybe focusing on the Hallows instead of the Horcruxes is
enough in itself to disturb the visions? Or *wanting* to see into LV's
mind disturbs them? I really don't have a good answer to this
question, but I'm curious as to what others have to say about it.
> 
> 8) Harry feels that Ron and Hermione are obsessed with the horcuxes.
She accuses him of being obsessed with the Hallows and tells him that
they are "the ones trying to do what Dumbledore wanted us to do!" Why
are they at an impasse over the way to proceed? Why does Harry "give 
up on her"?

Carol responds:
Because it's impossible to persuade her that he's right, and she can't
persuade him, either. He knows that the Hallows are real; she senses
that they're dangerous and that Horcruxes over Hallows is the wrong
choice. There's no time to hunt for both with LV after the Elder Wand.
FWIW, I side with Hermione here. Harry is the one who's "obsessed";
hermione just wants to do what they set out to do, the job that DD
assigned them.
> 
> 9) As Harry retreats into his own imagination, Ron starts to take 
charge. Is Ron only capable of leadership because Harry is distracted
or is it something else?

Carol responds:
At the risk of boring everyone by repeating what I've said at least a
dozen times, Ron destroyed his personal demons (insecurity, jealousy,
envy) when he destroyed the Horcrux. Finally, he can develop the
latent ability to lead that being a Prefect failed to bring out in
him. Of course, he's not great at coming up with ideas, but getting
them to act and to focus at least theoretically on the Horcruxes is
important in itself. He knows all too well the dangers of being lost
in your own imagination after his experiences with the locket Horcrux.
> 
> 10)If Harry is so determined that finding the Elder Wand is the way
to proceed, why do they waste months without making any real 
progress? What, if anything, is achieved in these long months of  camping?

Carol responds:

About the only thing they accomplish before Harry brilliantly says
"Voldemort" is hearing Potterwatch (and being able to laugh). BTW, the
narrator says that it's March when they hear Potterwatch, and then we
discover in the next chapter that it's the Easter holiday. Easter in
1998 was April 12; in 1997, it was March 30. Has JKR confused those
two years, or would the Easter holiday be long enough to begin in
March if Easter itself was in mid-April?

The problem, IMO, is that there aren't enough Horcruxes and adventures
and places to look to fill up a whole school year, a built-in weakness
in the plot structure of DH.
> 
> 11)What is it about the Potterwatch broadcast that makes Harry feel
more connected to the world?

Carol:
Hearing familiar voices and news of the outside world, especially
people he knows shows that others besides HRH are still opposing
Voldemort in whatever way they can. They're not alone. And, of course,
it's always cheering to hear a friend's voice even if the friend can't
hear you.
> 
> 12) Why do Lupin's words cause Harry to feel "a mixture of gratitude
and shame"?

Carol responds:
Harry is still not sure whether he did the right thing by reprimanding
Lupin, his former teacher and his father's friend, in essence telling
him that his duty lies with his wife and unborn child and that they
don't need or want his help. Even though, IMO, Harry was right, he was
still opposing someone that he had always respected and obeyed. He's
grateful that Lupin has forgiven him, but he's also afraid that he was
in the wrong and is ashamed of his behavior. We see the same thing
again when Lupin is summoned by the Resurrection Stone. IIRC, Harry
rushes to apologize to him before speaking to anyone else. IMO,
however, Lupin realizes long before this point that Harry was right.
His part in the fight against Voldemort is not to help (or hinder)
Harry but to protect his pregnant wife, who is being specifically
targeted by DEs (especially Bellatrix) for marrying a werewolf and
further sullying her bloodline (in the DEs' view).
> 
> 13) Why does Lupin say that Harry's instincts are "good and nearly 
always right"? Are these words in reference to the past, or are they
meant to foreshadow events to come?

Carol:
I think that Lupin is saying that Harry was right in this specific
instance, and that he has often been right before. Still, there's at
least one instance, the ill-fated attempt to rescue Sirius Black (who
would not have been in any danger had Harry not tried to "save" him)
that Lupin can't ignore. *Nearly* always and always are not the same.
So I suppose he means, "Trust your instincts but don't trust them
absolutely." In terms of the future, I don't know what Lupin could
have in mind unless he's thinking of the conflict with Voldemort in
GoF, in which instinct (along with luck and the phoenix-feather/holly
wand) saved him. Maybe he thinks that Harry's instincts will save him
a second time. He can't be talking about the Horcrux quest, which he
knows nothing about. (And, ironically, Harry's instinct or impulse to
say the name "Voldemort," which occurs shortly after he hears this bit
of advice, nearly results in disaster.)
> 
> 14) Is the rush of emotions Harry felt while listening to
Potterwatch responsible for his reckless saying of Voldemort's name?
If not, what causes him to break the taboo that he's kept for months?

Carol responds:
JKR's plot needs? Seriously, I don't think Harry ever really believed
in the Taboo, especially since DD had always encouraged him to say
Voldemort's name. Or maybe, as I hinted above, he's trusting his
instincts a bit too much at the moment!

Carol, thanking jmnabers for a very nice summary and interesting questions




From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 23:06:08 2008
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:06:08 -0000
Subject: 'Deathbed Confession' / Ron's  H-H insecurity/Did Severus Murder/Did DD Like
In-Reply-To: <g2i95j+911p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2kd10+3km2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183189

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Zanooda wrote in
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183142>:
> > 
> > << Just out of curiosity, how do you know that Snape committed 
> murder? >>
> 
> Catlady replied: 
> > I don't recall any canon nor even JKR statement that Severus
> committed murder, but I am sure he did. I believe Voldemort required
> all his Death Eaters to commit a murder (as part of a group of
> murderers) to prove they aren't wimps, to earn their Dark Mark, to
> assure them that turning their cloaks would not get them in good 
with
> the Ministry (which would want to send them to Azkaban for murder). 
> > 
> > Voldemort being Voldemort, he probably just killed the ones who
> refused to do it and the ones who set out to do it but failed. 
> > 
> > There may have been a few serving him who were too valuable to 
risk
> loosing their services in that manner, such as spies or saboteurs 
who
> were valuable because of their position in highly secret parts of 
the
> Ministry. I'm sure he valued Severus as a potions genius, but I 
don't
> think he valued Severus enough to spare him from murdering like
> everybody else. <snip>

> Carol responds:

> But, as you say, we have no canonical evidence and no evidence from
> interviews that Snape ever killed anybody. I doubt that he'd be so
> concerned about the state of his soul after killing DD had he done 
so.
> And DD asks him how many people he's watched die, not how many 
people
> he has killed.

Jack-A-Roe:
I read the scene with Dumbledore and Snape differently. 

"If you don't mind dying," said Snape roughly, why not let Draco do 
it?"

"That boy's soul is not yet so damaged," said Dumbledore. "I would 
not have it ripped apart on my account."

"And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?"

"You alone know whether it will harm your sould to help an old man 
avoid pain and humiliation," said Dumbledore.

then

His tone was light, but his blue eyes pierced Snape as they had 
frequently pierced Harry, as though the soul they discussed was 
visible to him. At last Snape gave a another curt nod.

I read it as if Dumbledore knows that Snape has damaged his soul and 
that helping him along will not damage it any further than it already 
has been damaged. The phrasing of "pierced" brings to mind something 
being damaged. The fact that it is used twice before the word soul 
led me to inerpret the scene that Dumbledore knew about Snapes past.

If you read the scene another way and determine that he somehow 
joined the deatheaters and rose through their ranks without 
committing murder doesn't that fact that he belongs to a terrorist 
organization that uses murder as one of its tools make him an 
accessory to the murders?










From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com  Mon Jun  9 23:46:32 2008
From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (Blair)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:46:32 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2976t+93rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2kfco+db22@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183190

I've been reading this thread since it started, trying to decide if I
was going to put my two Knuts in.

I love Severus Snape.

He was one of the very few grey characters in the books.  Everyone
else was good or evil -- even those that were hidden evil (Wormtail
for example), were evil in the end.  He was a character who was not
easily defined by what everyone immediately saw about him.  He had a
rough childhood and it didn't help that, when he finally got to go to
Hogwarts, that the first people he meets are the soon-to-be Marauders.
 They're compared to the Twins far too often.  The Twins did not, as
far as we could see, torture people just because they existed.  The
Twins were pranksters but they were still good people.  I don't even
particularly hate MMWP, but I just think that they get a pass when
they shouldn't.  They're the HS jocks who beat kids up but the
teachers like them so they get away with it.  Severus had to deal with
those people attacking him all the time -- that would definitely make
me bitter as well.

This isn't as long as I'd like it to be, but it's the prelim of what I
think.  I liked Severus; I would've been friends with Severus.

Oryomai




From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com  Mon Jun  9 23:59:28 2008
From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (Blair)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:59:28 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:  DH 22, The Deathly Hallows
In-Reply-To: <g2j3ss+inqv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2kg50+itp8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183191

> Discussion Questions:
> 1) Why does Hermione do her best to protect Xenophilius from the 
> Death Eaters? Is it only because of her feelings of friendship for 
> Luna? Or did she, like Harry, recognize his desperation to save his 
> child?

Oryomai:
I'm not sure.  Hermione is far more logical than Harry.  We have to
remember that she was the one who put the jinx on the Dumbledore's
Army sign up sheet.  I'm not sure that she thought the same as Harry,
but she definitely did not want to have his murder on her conscience.

> 2) Why does Hermione consider the trips to Godric's Hollow and the 
> Lovegood household "a waste of time"?

Oryomai:
They didn't end with the destruction of a Horcrux.  That's the only
mission as far as she's concerned.  It doesn't matter that they
learned about the Hallows or that they got a copy of Rita Skeeter's
book; it didn't further the mission.
 
> 3) Harry realizes that his "talk of living with dead people" had 
> scared of Hermione. Why is living with dead people comforting to 
> Harry and yet frightening to Hermione?

Oryomai:
Hermione's never really had to deal with death the same way that Harry
has.  All the people that she cares about are still alive.  Harry has
such strong ties to those that have passed on that he would want to
see them.  There are very few people that Hermione would want to see
brought back to life (although at the end of the Battle of Hogwarts
there might be more).

> 5) When Harry realizes that Voldemort must also want the Elder Wand, 
> it "extinguishes" all of his hope and happiness. Why?

Oryomai:
I think that it's because Harry realized that Voldy was more likely to
get to the wand before he did.  If Voldy had the Elder Wand, he would
be able to beat everyone.  This is before the whole nonsense at the
end with the beating of wands and such.

> 8) Harry feels that Ron and Hermione are obsessed with the horcuxes. 
> She accuses him of being obsessed with the Hallows and tells him that 
> they are "the ones trying to do what Dumbledore wanted us to do!" Why 
> are they at an impasse over the way to proceed? Why does Harry "give 
> up on her"?

Oryomai:
Harry probably thinks that the Hallows would be much easier to find at
this point.  They don't even know what the Horcruxes are; they know
exactly what the three Hallows are and Harry has a pretty good idea of
where they are.  He gives up on Hermione because she is very single
minded at times -- she wants to find the Horcruxes and that's what
she's going to do.

> 10)If Harry is so determined that finding the Elder Wand is the way 
> to proceed, why do they waste months without making any real 
> progress? What, if anything, is achieved in these long months of 
> camping?

Oryomai:
Boring me to death? :-)  Really, nothing is accomplished in these
months of camping.  They serve to separate the Trio from the rest of
the WW, give them a chance to hear what's going on (through Ted Tonks
and the rest), and takes up a big ole chunk of the book.  For me, the
camping sections were the worst in the entire series and I could not
wait for them to be over (I don't even re-read them most of the time!).
 
> 11)What is it about the Potterwatch broadcast that makes Harry feel 
> more connected to the world?

Oryomai:
Harry gets to hear the people he knows talk about what everyone has to
do in order to defeat Voldy.  This is the first time that he has had
any kind of news since he left Bill and Fleur's wedding.

> 12) Why do Lupin's words cause Harry to feel "a mixture of gratitude 
> and shame"?
> 13) Why does Lupin say that Harry's instincts are "good and nearly 
> always right"? Are these words in reference to the past, or are they 
> meant to foreshadow events to come?

Oryomai:
I guess I'd combine these two.  I think that when Lupin compliments
Harry like that, Harry is thinking about how he yelled at Lupin and
called him a coward (which, btw, I thought was totally out of line of
Harry...but I digress), and here Lupin is defending him on the radio.
 Lupin was the only one of MWPP still around...I think he felt like he
didn't get his chance to fight like the others did.  His remarks about
Harry's instincts, I think, are about the past.  I think he's hoping
that if Harry hears him, he'll know that Lupin thinks he did the right
thing in the end.  They also foreshadow the end, when we're supposed
to believe that the boy who didn't ask any questions about his parents
can suddenly know everything :-)

> 
> 14) Is the rush of emotions Harry felt while listening to Potterwatch 
> responsible for his reckless saying of Voldemort's name? If not, what 
> causes him to break the taboo that he's kept for months?

Oryomai:
I think hearing Potterwatch was like being back with the Order.  DD
worked very hard to get the Order to say Voldy's name.  I think Harry
was feeling encouraged and inspired by the radio program he just heard
and kinda dropped the ball.

Oryomai




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 01:31:35 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:31:35 -0000
Subject: Did Severus Murder
In-Reply-To: <g2kd10+3km2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2klhn+pbee@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183192

Carol earlier:
> 
> > But, as you say, we have no canonical evidence and no evidence
from interviews that Snape ever killed anybody. I doubt that he'd be
so concerned about the state of his soul after killing DD had he done  so.
> > And DD asks him how many people he's watched die, not how many
people he has killed.
> 
Jack-A-Roe responded:
> I read the scene with Dumbledore and Snape differently. 
> 
> "If you don't mind dying," said Snape roughly, why not let Draco do it?"
> 
> "That boy's soul is not yet so damaged," said Dumbledore. "I would 
not have it ripped apart on my account."
> 
> "And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?"
> 
> "You alone know whether it will harm your sould to help an old man
avoid pain and humiliation," said Dumbledore.
> 
> then
> 
> His tone was light, but his blue eyes pierced Snape as they had 
> frequently pierced Harry, as though the soul they discussed was 
> visible to him. At last Snape gave a another curt nod.
> 
> I read it as if Dumbledore knows that Snape has damaged his soul and
that helping him along will not damage it any further than it already
has been damaged. The phrasing of "pierced" brings to mind something 
being damaged. The fact that it is used twice before the word soul led
me to inerpret the scene that Dumbledore knew about Snapes past.

Carol:
If that's the case, Harry's soul is damaged, too, since the narrator
says, "his blue eyes pierced Snape as they had frequently pierced
Harry." (It's used twice because one reference is to Snape and the
other to Harry.)
> 
Jack-a-Roe:
> If you read the scene another way and determine that he somehow 
> joined the deatheaters and rose through their ranks without 
> committing murder doesn't that fact that he belongs to a terrorist 
> organization that uses murder as one of its tools make him an 
> accessory to the murders?
>
Carol responds:
*Of course*, he was "a tool and accessory to the murders" committed by
the terrorist organization he had joined, particularly if he concocted
poisons that he knew would be used to murder people. But that is
different from commiting the murders himself, which we have no
evidence that he did. The only Killing Curse--and, for that matter,
the only Unforgiveable Curse of any description--that we ever see
Snape cast is the one that kills Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders.

Speculate all you like. I'm simply saying that *canon* gives us no
indication that Snape ever killed anyone besides Dumbledore, and some
indication (his concern for his soul and the mention of people that he
has *seen* die as opposed to killed) that he did not.

As for the piercing blue eyes, they pierce Harry as well as Snape, as
Harry is remembering in this scene. (My guess is that DD is using
Legilimency at those moments. I don't think that Snape would use
Occlumency against Dumbledore, who already knows Snape's worst sin or
crime, revealing the partial Prophecy to Voldemort.)

Carol, who still thinks that Snape would not be concerned about a torn
soul if his soul were torn (as opposed to tarnished) already





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 01:44:46 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:44:46 -0000
Subject: Did Severus Murder
In-Reply-To: <g2klhn+pbee@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2kmae+k2c6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183193

> Carol responds:
<SNIP>
> Speculate all you like. I'm simply saying that *canon* gives us no
> indication that Snape ever killed anyone besides Dumbledore, and 
some
> indication (his concern for his soul and the mention of people that 
he
> has *seen* die as opposed to killed) that he did not.
<SNIP>

Alla:

I actually agree now that Snape did not **pull the trigger** himself 
on anybody else but Dumbledore. And I argued vehemently before DH 
came out that he did since I also would find it bizarre that the 
member of terrorist organization somehow managed to have his hands 
clean.

But yes, his concern for his soul being torn tells me that his soul 
was probably not torned before, otherwise why would he be concerned.

Having said that, I certainly do not think that Snape managed to have 
clean hands while being a DE and to me if he prepared poisons for 
others, he is as good as killed those people.

I believe that Snape probably did not do Avada before doing one on 
Dumbledore, but as a member of DE squad, I believe he did lots of 
other dirty deeds that resulted in deaths. I mean speculate of 
course, I just do not see how could he not.

And of course I believe that blood of James and Lily is on his hands 
too just as on Voldemort's.





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Jun 10 02:13:24 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:13:24 -0000
Subject: Did Severus Murder
In-Reply-To: <g2kmae+k2c6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2ko04+q9lv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183194

> Alla:
> 
> I actually agree now that Snape did not **pull the trigger** 
himself 
> on anybody else but Dumbledore. And I argued vehemently before DH 
> came out that he did since I also would find it bizarre that the 
> member of terrorist organization somehow managed to have his hands 
> clean.
> 
> But yes, his concern for his soul being torn tells me that his soul 
> was probably not torned before, otherwise why would he be concerned.

Magpie:
Not to say that Snape has murdered anybody, but I think he could 
still be concerned for his soul if it had been torn before. It's not 
just the first murder that tears it. Presumably every murder tears 
it. If he had killed somebody and it was painful that might give him 
more reason to not want it to happen again.

Which makes me wonder if you can do anything to make it whole again 
or at least heal it. Does it affect your experience in the afterlife 
if it's torn once, twice or a number of times? Can you fix that 
through remorse?

-m




From jmnabers at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 01:43:25 2008
From: jmnabers at yahoo.com (jmnabers)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:43:25 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:  DH 22, The Deathly Hallows
In-Reply-To: <g2k7vr+54pv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2km7t+gko1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183195

Thanks for catching my mistakes, Carol! Sloppy writing for the first
one, and for the second I think with they Grayback appearance and
knowledge of where they were going next, I just mentally made the
Snatchers into Death Eaters.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I'll answer *some* of my own
questions ;-)

1) As I reread, I was really taken with Hermione's actions as they
escape. I know it's sort of cheating because the question is more
directly about the previous chapter, but I was very much taken by
Harry's connection of the look on Xenophilius's face to what he
imagines his mother must have looked like as she defended Harry.
However, Hermione wouldn't have had that same moment of insight into
his actions. It is a moment of true kindness on her part, and I like
that she doesn't make a lot of fuss about it. I think it also
foreshadows the beginning of the next chapter (getting ahead of
myself) where she attempts to hide Harry's true identity from the
Snatchers.



> >
> > 4) Why is Harry able to put the story together so quickly? It says
> his "imagination was racing ahead, far beyond Ron and Hermione's." Is
> it imagination, experience, or something else that allows Harry to
> make the intuitive leaps that other cannot?

I'm not sure what I think here, but I remember feeling it was the
first real moment that Harry would actually have a chance to defeat
Voldemort. I love Harry, but I was always a little conflicted about
the task Dumbledore had given him. How could Harry achieve what
Dumbledore and so many others could not? It was at this moment that I
realized that he did have what it would take to get the job done.
Something seemed to all come together in this scene, making the many
pages / months of nothing left in this chapter even more difficult to
bear.





> > 7) Harry wishes his scar would burn again because "for the first
> time ever, he and Voldemort were united in wanting the very same
> thing." When his visions do return, they are blurred. Why are the
> visions different now than they have been in the past?

Again, this was a fascinating little snippet of information. I found
myself wondering if perhaps Harry is unwittingly using legilimancy?
Perhaps the visions are blurry because rather than "receiving" the
transmissions, he's actively trying to "tune in" to them? Obviously,
he tried something similar in OotP, wanting desperately to see in
Voldemort's brain, but we later discover that Voldemort was avidly
working at getting those visions into Harry's head. Could it be this
time that Harry is really trying to gain access without Voldemort's
help, rendering the visions "blurry" because he doesn't really know
what he's doing?


> > 10)If Harry is so determined that finding the Elder Wand is the way
> to proceed, why do they waste months without making any real
> progress? What, if anything, is achieved in these long months of
camping?

Put me in the "no progress was made" camp. It is incredibly difficult
to read (and summarize!) this chapter. The answer is found! Now let's
not do anything about it for months.


> > 11)What is it about the Potterwatch broadcast that makes Harry feel
> more connected to the world?
> > 12) Why do Lupin's words cause Harry to feel "a mixture of gratitude
> and shame"?

I think part of the shame, too, is thinking about what he's doing
right now...ie, nothing! Hearing about Ted, Dean, and Hagrid might
cause Harry to feel ashamed of the relative safety he's enjoying.
These friends are out there fighting, and they are, essentially, doing
nothing but hiding. I think something about that mix of information
spurs Harry's emotions out of their stupor.


> > 13) Why does Lupin say that Harry's instincts are "good and nearly
> always right"? Are these words in reference to the past, or are they
> meant to foreshadow events to come?

I like Carol's point here that it's both forgiveness and warning.
Maybe it's also a reminder that Harry's instincts should still be
tempered by common sense?


> > 14) Is the rush of emotions Harry felt while listening to
> Potterwatch responsible for his reckless saying of Voldemort's name?
> If not, what causes him to break the taboo that he's kept for months?

Carol, I hadn't even considered that he might not have ever believed
in the taboo. I think he was angry and spoiling for a fight. Angry
people do rash things, but I did find this plot twist more of a
contrivance than anything else.

jmnabers



From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 05:58:21 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:58:21 -0000
Subject: Harry and Charlie
In-Reply-To: <001801c8c97c$df7eb590$69ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1>
Message-ID: <g2l55t+fsnb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183196

Jerri:
> In a Dahl world one doesn't ask "how can James enter a giant peach and 
> talk to Grasshopper, Centipede, and Earthworm", or how can the great 
> glass elevator move from side to side as well as up and down, and fly 
> through the air, etc.  And I can't see anyone worrying about Mike 
> Teavee or Veruca Salt who gets pushed into the garbage chute by 
> squirrels, because she is a "bad nut", etc.  And the events at 
> Matilda's school make Snape and Fake/Moody seem like nice people, but 
> the reader isn't apt to wonder why Child Welfare hasn't been called 
> in.  The books are a type of fantasy that the reader knows doesn't 
> follow real world rules.
> 
> However, in Harry's world, or actually JKR's world, in spite of the 
> magic sometimes things seem so "real" and the rules of that world seem 
> to be spelled out.  And when the "poetic justice" causes the DA 
> members to hex Crabbe, Goyle and Draco on the train and turn them into 
> slug like objects, and step on them we can feel outraged, although we 
> don't when the squirrels are dumping Veruca into the chute.
> 
> Anyway, it seems to me that JKR's magical world is sort of mid-way 
> between some magical worlds, like Tolkien's or perhaps that created by 
> Mercedes Lackey, where the "rules" seem consistent (at least to me), 
> and the Dahl type magical worlds where the reader knows from the start 
> that rules are made to be broken.

Montavilla47:
I think what JKR tends to do is veer from one side to the other.  There are
times in her stories where it seems obvious that we're supposed to be
reading HP like we'd read a Roald Dahl story--and take no more mind of 
Draco being bounced up and down than Veruca Salt dropping in the nut 
bin.  

But something odd happens with her characters--and I find I end up
sympathizing with people I know I'm not supposed to.  It really started 
with Marietta in OotP for me.  Seeing her at the end of the book with her
balaklava was a little edgy for me, like seeing the overhead view of the
"naughty" kids in CatCF, still bearing the scars of their transformations.

So, it was Roald Dahl-ish, but not over the top.  It was when, in HBP, 
that Harry noticed with satisfaction that she was still scarred that I got
uncomfortable with the amount of punishment that was being ladled
out.  But partly, that was due to the sympathy I got for her when she
was obviously unhappy about signing the parchment.

Oddly, it was HBP that changed me from being mildly amused at the 
horrible things that happened to the Dursleys to annoyed.  I read
through the chapter when Dumbledore shows up to lecture them
on polite behavior and child-rearing in complete sympathy with the
Dursleys.  

It's not really a matter of how horrible the punishment is, because
getting hit in the head with mead glasses is annoying, but not 
as bad as getting a pig's tail grafted onto your body and having
to go to the surgeon to get it removed.

It just struck me as very hypocritical for a guy to show at 
11:00 o'clock at night and then lecture anybody on what's
proper and what isn't.  

And, having crossed the line from sympathizing with the good
guys, and sympathizing with the bad ones, I looked back
and saw that there were a lot more of these odd jujitsu
passages, where the person who is supposed to look bad
ends up looking nicer than the heroes.

But, it would be easy for JKR to have made her "bad" characters
so unsympathetic that I wouldn't even notice.  So, kudos to her
for creating sympathetic bad guys.





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Jun 10 13:44:32 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:44:32 -0000
Subject: Harry and Charlie
In-Reply-To: <g2l55t+fsnb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2m0g0+p015@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183197

> Montavilla47:
> I think what JKR tends to do is veer from one side to the other.  
There are
> times in her stories where it seems obvious that we're supposed to be
> reading HP like we'd read a Roald Dahl story--and take no more mind 
of 
> Draco being bounced up and down than Veruca Salt dropping in the nut 
> bin.  

Magpie:
She wrote that scene strangely if she wanted me to take it that way. I 
know plenty of people do read the scene as just funny, but I did, and 
thought it was written in a sympathetic way, what with the little 
ferret squealing in pain as he smacked against hard stone, leaving 
Draco with his eyes filled with tears. Yipes!

When the villain was revealed I thought the idea was to give us a clue 
that he was really a sadist DE so we were supposed to notice that.

-m




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 13:52:07 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:52:07 -0000
Subject: Snape & Harry
In-Reply-To: <g2f7j9+529b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2m0u7+mssf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183198

 
> > Montavilla47:
> > 
> > Yes, that would have been nice and satisfying for this reader, at
> least.  But, in the books, it didn't happen.  
> 
> Pippin:
> It would have created a monster plot-hole if it had. Portrait!Snape
> would have been somewhere about the castle during the interval between
> his death and Harry's victory, and there'd have to be some explanation
> of what he'd been doing, which could only be anticlimactic. 

Zara:
In my Potterverse, Snape did get a portrait immediately. By which I 
mean, that I imagined he had one on my first read-through of DH (just 
as I suppose the dead were buried, the school's damage was repaired, 
Kingsley did some actual useful Minister-type things, etc. Rowling's 
post-book explanation makes no sense to me. The castle knew the game he 
was playing, he discussed it extensively in the Headmaster's office, so 
it had no reason to assume Snape had not been planning to return when 
he was murdered hours later, nor did it have reason to think he was not 
gone on the school's business.

I presumed we did not see the portrait because it was, like Albus's in 
the hours following *his* death, sleeping. I would not have minded 
hearing Harry noticed a portrait in that final scene that was not 
cheering, because it was still asleep. <g> Not that I hugely missed it, 
because I assumed it was there.







From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 14:00:01 2008
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:00:01 -0000
Subject: Did Severus Murder
In-Reply-To: <g2klhn+pbee@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2m1d1+o5i1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183199

Jack-A-Roe
snip> > 
> > "You alone know whether it will harm your sould to help an old man
> avoid pain and humiliation," said Dumbledore.
> > 
> > then
> > 
> > His tone was light, but his blue eyes pierced Snape as they had 
> > frequently pierced Harry, as though the soul they discussed was 
> > visible to him. At last Snape gave a another curt nod.
> > 
> > I read it as if Dumbledore knows that Snape has damaged his soul 
and
> that helping him along will not damage it any further than it 
already
> has been damaged. The phrasing of "pierced" brings to mind 
something 
> being damaged. The fact that it is used twice before the word soul 
led
> me to inerpret the scene that Dumbledore knew about Snapes past.
> 
> Carol:
> If that's the case, Harry's soul is damaged, too, since the narrator
> says, "his blue eyes pierced Snape as they had frequently pierced
> Harry." (It's used twice because one reference is to Snape and the
> other to Harry.)

Jack-A-Roe:
No, you are misinterpreting what I was saying. I said the phrasing 
conjures the image in your head of something being damaged. Right 
before this we are talking about about Snape's soul. Then we are 
talking about Snape being pierced by Dumbledore's gaze. To me it's 
obvious that JKR was trying to get us to make the connection 
ourselves. Because Snape does agree to do it.




> Jack-a-Roe:
> > If you read the scene another way and determine that he somehow 
> > joined the deatheaters and rose through their ranks without 
> > committing murder doesn't that fact that he belongs to a 
terrorist 
> > organization that uses murder as one of its tools make him an 
> > accessory to the murders?
> >
> Carol responds:
> *Of course*, he was "a tool and accessory to the murders" committed 
by
> the terrorist organization he had joined, particularly if he 
concocted
> poisons that he knew would be used to murder people. But that is
> different from commiting the murders himself, which we have no
> evidence that he did. The only Killing Curse--and, for that matter,
> the only Unforgiveable Curse of any description--that we ever see
> Snape cast is the one that kills Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders.
> 
> Speculate all you like. I'm simply saying that *canon* gives us no
> indication that Snape ever killed anyone besides Dumbledore,
 and some
> indication (his concern for his soul

Jack-A-Roe:
Canon may not say it specifically, but it is an obvious 
interpretation of the scene to me. Snape asking about his soul 
sounded more like him complaining that Dumbledore liked Draco better 
than him.  Something like "your more worried about his soul than 
mine" to which DD responds that only know if yours is already 
damaged. After that Snape nods as if to agree with DD that it won't 
make it any worse.

One of the next scenes we see after this is Snape again being 
somewhat childish. It's the one where Snape is complaining to DD that 
he is telling Potter things that he isn't telling Snape and DD tells 
him to come to his office later on. Again it comes across as you like 
him better than you like me. 






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 17:06:11 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:06:11 -0000
Subject: Sympathy for the bad guys (Was: Harry and Charlie)
In-Reply-To: <g2l55t+fsnb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2mca3+4opg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183200

Montavilla47 wrote:
<huge snip>
> it would be easy for JKR to have made her "bad" characters so
unsympathetic that I wouldn't even notice.  So, kudos to her for
creating sympathetic bad guys.

Carol responds:
I remember feeling very uneasy when the apparent good guy we thought
was Professor Moody turned Draco into a bouncing ferret, and even more
bothered by Ron's reaction, savoring the excessive and cruel
punishment as a favorite moment. I think now that the scene was a hint
that "Moody" *wasn't* a good guy but it's left to the reader to figure
that out.

Draco himself, however, doesn't become sympathetic until HBP, when we
see him struggling with a dark and dangerous mission that's too big
for him and in danger of being killed along with his family if he
doesn't complete it. 

But what struck me even more with HBP was "Spinner's End." Snape is as
ambiguous as ever, but we see him being a proper host to Narcissa and
Bellatrix and a gentleman to Narcissa. We see haughty, arrogant
Narcissa reduced to tears by her fears for the son she loves. And even
Bellatrix, who remains an unshakeably loyal DE devoted to Voldemort,
has some affection for the younger sister she calls "Cissy."

So, yes. Kudos to JKR for granting her bad guys (and the seeming bad
guy, Snape) some humanity in HBP. The closest we come before that is
Aunt Petunia in OoP not only concerned, as always, about Dudley
(nothing new there--they coddle him to death) but actually on the same
wavelength as Harry regarding Death Eaters and Voldemort.

I'd have liked to see more scenes that showed the DEs as human beings
rather than mindless thugs (or rich bullies and snobs like the
Malfoys). I suppose that JKR was limited as much by her own lack of
sympathy for the bad guys as by Harry's point of view, which keeps the
reader out of the DE's minds and, for the most part, out of their
lives. (Some of my favorite chapters deviate from that pov.)

Carol, who can't stand Roald Dahl-style children's books





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 17:43:00 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:43:00 -0000
Subject: Did Severus Murder
In-Reply-To: <g2m1d1+o5i1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2mef4+avsi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183201

Jack-a-Roe earlier:
The phrasing of "pierced" brings to mind something being damaged. The
fact that it is used twice before the word soul 
> led
> > me to inerpret the scene that Dumbledore knew about Snapes past.
> > 
> > Carol:
> > If that's the case, Harry's soul is damaged, too, since the narrator
> > says, "his blue eyes pierced Snape as they had frequently pierced
> > Harry." (It's used twice because one reference is to Snape and the
> > other to Harry.)
> 
> Jack-A-Roe:
> No, you are misinterpreting what I was saying. I said the phrasing
conjures the image in your head of something being damaged. Right 
before this we are talking about about Snape's soul. Then we are
talking about Snape being pierced by Dumbledore's gaze. To me it's 
> obvious that JKR was trying to get us to make the connection 
> ourselves. Because Snape does agree to do it.
> 
Carol responds:
In *your* head, I think you mean. Certainly not in mine. All that's
involved is a piercing gaze, as if DD is looking into Snape's heart
and mind, as he so often does with Harry. Legilimency may or may not
be involved, but to extend the "piercing" gaze to refer to a split
soul is reading in too much, IMO, especially since Harry has also,
repeatedly, been pierced by that gaze--and by Snape's for that matter.
Do you think that *Harry's* soul is damaged by DD's gaze, or that his
eyes piercing *Harry* indicate that Harry's soul is damaged? 

Anyway, to *me* it's obvious that Harry is empathizing with Snape,
having so often been in exactly the same position. (Sidenote: I wonder
just how often JKR uses the phrase "piercing blue eyes" for DD. In
earlier books, the eyes usually sparkle.) 
> 
Carol earlier:
> > Speculate all you like. I'm simply saying that *canon* gives us no
indication that Snape ever killed anyone besides Dumbledore, and some
> > indication (his concern for his soul
> 
> Jack-A-Roe:
> Canon may not say it specifically, but it is an obvious 
interpretation of the scene to me. Snape asking about his soul sounded
more like him complaining that Dumbledore liked Draco better than him.
 Something like "your more worried about his soul than mine" to which
DD responds that only know if yours is already damaged. After that
Snape nods as if to agree with DD that it won't make it any worse.

Carol responds:
But that *isn't* what DD says. He says, "You alone know whether it
will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation" (DH
Am. ed. 683). So Snape has to decide whether this act is murder or
something like euthanasia, a humanitarian act. If it's murder, it will
split his soul. If it's an act of kindness, rescuing DD from a worse
fate, perhaps it won't. It has nothing to do with any previous actions
he may have committed. 

Jack-a-Roe: 
> One of the next scenes we see after this is Snape again being
somewhat childish. It's the one where Snape is complaining to DD that
he is telling Potter things that he isn't telling Snape and DD tells
him to come to his office later on. Again it comes across as you like
him better than you like me.

Carol responds:
You seem to be forgetting the context. Snape is saying, in essence
(and truthfully, IMO) that DD is making unreasonable demands on him
(in particular the request to kill DD, which Snape is having second
thoughts about, despite his Unbreakable Vow) without fully confiding
in him. Again, we have a parallel with Harry, who thinks almost
exactly the same thing: "Look at what he asked from me, Hermione! Risk
your life, Harry! And again! And again! And don't expect me to explain
everything, just trust me blindly, just trust that I know what I'm
doing, trust me even though I don't trust you! Never the whole truth!
Never!" (DH Am. ed. 362).

Harry understands *exactly* what Snape means when he says "You trust
him . . . you do not trust me." After all, Snape has lied and spied
and risked his life repeatedly, and now Dumbledore expects him to
perform what Snape sarcastically calls "that small service" (killing
DD) without telling him everything. DD apparently realizes that Snape
has a valid point and deserves to know more (not to mention that he's
afraid that Snape will refuse to kill him if DD doesn't demonstrate
his trust) because he responds with, "come to my office tonight,
Severus, at eleven, and you shall not complain that I have no
confidence in you. . . ." (685).

I was struck by the parallels between Harry's situation and Snape's,
as well as their similar reactions. it's just a shame, IMO, that Harry
didn't know earlier exactly how much Snape had done, how many dangers
he had exposed himself to, for Dumbledore and for Lily.

Carol, who does not deny that merely belonging to a terrorist
organization, not to mention revealing the Prophecy, made Snape an
accessory to murder but sees no evidence whatever that he killed
anyone directly before committing the "murder" on the tower at DD's
request 





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 18:55:47 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:55:47 -0000
Subject: Sympathy for the bad guys (Was: Harry and Charlie)
In-Reply-To: <g2mca3+4opg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2minj+jjep@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183202

> Carol responds:
> Draco himself, however, doesn't become sympathetic until HBP, when 
we
> see him struggling with a dark and dangerous mission that's too big
> for him and in danger of being killed along with his family if he
> doesn't complete it. 

zgirnius:
This is in the eye of the beholder. He was an annoying little snob 
and totally clueless about he came across the very moment we met him 
in PS/SS. I already sympathized with him at that point as a 
consequence. Meeting his father in CoS reinforced that for me - I 
could even see where this was coming from - he admired his father and 
wanted to be just like him, quite natural in a boy that age. And he 
was the Wile E. Coyote of the series, regularly foiled by the Trio 
and their friends, so much so that, just as I do in watching the 
Roadrunner cartoons, I wished for Draco to win for a change. 

> Carol:
> So, yes. Kudos to JKR for granting her bad guys (and the seeming bad
> guy, Snape) some humanity in HBP. 

Zara:
Surely Snape, anyway, already had that in OotP?





From ladymela99 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 19:11:37 2008
From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (Melanie)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sympathy for the bad guys (Was: Harry and Charlie)
In-Reply-To: <g2minj+jjep@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <656841.56632.qm@web30006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183203

<<zgirnius wrote:
This is in the eye of the beholder. He was an annoying little snob 
and totally clueless about he came across the very moment we met him 
in PS/SS. I already sympathized with him at that point as a 
consequence. Meeting his father in CoS reinforced that for me - I 
could even see where this was coming from - he admired his father and 
wanted to be just like him, quite natural in a boy that age. And he 
was the Wile E. Coyote of the series, regularly foiled by the Trio 
and their friends, so much so that, just as I do in watching the 
Roadrunner cartoons, I wished for Draco to win for a change>>>
   
  I personally thought Draco to be extremely sympathetic in COS. I felt him a victim of a demoralizing father who he could never live up to, and ultimately never did.  In the I think Draco did change, it was just a subtle change.  The Draco of the early series would have turned over Hermione Granger on a silver platter for all world to see but the Draco in Deathly Hallows lies to Bellatrix and the olther death eaters and says he cannot conclusively identify the trio.  This was a major change in Draco.  
   
  The Draco at the end of Deathly Hallows acknowledges that Harry exists by giving him a slight nod of, a friendly greeting.  Do I think him and Harry are best friends?  No.  Do I think Albus and Scorpious will be best friends?  Probably not..but then you never know.  
   
  What we saw is that Draco has more love in his heart than Tom ever had.  He is not capable of  becoming what Voldie was and I doubt his little November born child is either.  Just a thought...
   
  But then again I've always liked my boys a little on the  bad side.  :)
   
  ~Melanie

       

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lwalsh at acsalaska.net  Tue Jun 10 19:41:59 2008
From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:41:59 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC:  DH 22, The Deathly Hallows
In-Reply-To: <g2j3ss+inqv@eGroups.com>
References: <g2j3ss+inqv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <EFEFA0CC-8988-4881-A594-CC1F3DC9A477@acsalaska.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 183204


On 2008, Jun 09, , at 03:24, jmnabers wrote:

> Harry suddenly remembers that Marvolo Gaunt, Voldemort's
> grandfather, claimed to be a descendent of the Peverell family. In an
> intuitive leap, Harry speculates that Marvolo's ring must contain the
> Resurrection Stone; furthermore, he realizes that Voldemort must not
> know about the powerful Deathly Hallows if he risked destroying one
> by turning it into a horcrux.

I apologize if this has already been discussed.

Why does it follow that Voldemort could not have known
that Marvolo's ring was a Hallow.  In fact, that would make
it seem more LIKELY to me.  Voldemort loved trophies
and he thought he was the only one who knew about this
one.  Why couldn't he just make it into a horcrux and bury
it until he finds the rest of them?

It seems more likely to me that the reason Harry can know
that Voldemort doesn't know about the Hallows is that, if
he knew and if he suspected that the ring was one of the
Hallows, and since he also knows that Harry has an
invisibility cloak, it would make VM more interested in
capturing Harry's cloak, in case it is the right one, rather
than killing Harry.  None of the DEs chasing Harry ever
mention trying to steal the cloak.

LauraW
-- 
Laura Lynn Walsh    lwalsh at acsalaska.net
http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 19:43:23 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:43:23 -0000
Subject: Sympathy for the bad guys (Was: Harry and Charlie)
In-Reply-To: <g2minj+jjep@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2mlgr+hdf5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183205

Carol earlier:
> > So, yes. Kudos to JKR for granting her bad guys (and the seeming
bad guy, Snape) some humanity in HBP. 
> 
> Zara:
> Surely Snape, anyway, already had that in OotP?

Carol responds:
Good point. I think that SWM humanized him, at least for most readers
(and I already liked him and could see DDM!Snape where Harry
couldn't), by showing him being attacked two-on-one for no discernible
cause. 

But my point was that "Spinner's End" is our first indication of
humanity (mother love and desperation) in the likes of Narcissa
Malfoy, previously glimpsed only as a haughty Pure-blood supremacist,
Voldemort supporter, and abuser of House-Elves who indulged her only
son in a manner that seemed to connect her with Petunia Dursley
(sending him sweets by owl post and fearing to have him as far away as
Durmstrang). And, as I said, even Bellatrix is revealed as having some
fondness for her sister (even if she does think that she would
sacrifice her imaginary sons for the cause--wonder if she'd still hold
that view if she actually had children). BTW, I don't mean that
Narcissa is at all *humane*, only that she's revealed to have *human*
needs and emotions. She becomes, for the first time, a somewhat
sympathetic character akin to other mothers (besides Petunia)--Lily,
Molly, Mrs. Crouch--each a variation on the theme of motherhood in the
HP books.

For me, "Spinner's End" provided a welcome glimpse of the DEs as they
behave among themselves. Snape as gracious host and--what shall we
call him? knight errant willing to rescue a damsel in distress by
protecting her son at great risk to himself?--was a happy surprise in
terms of characterization (not happy, of course, in terms of the vow
itself and its potential consequences)--different from SWM, which
revealed his vulnerability and showed that his view of James was not
so far off the mark as readers--and Harry--had thought. (Fortunately
for the consistency of Snape's characterization, he was as snarky as
ever in dealing with Bellatrix and Wormtail.)

But until that point, the ever-ambiguous Snape aside, the closest JKR
had come to depicting a DE sympathetically was a few remarks about
Barty Crouch Jr. not being loved or appreciated by his father, which,
considering the source and Barty Sr.'s memory of his pride in his son
when he received twelve OWLs, seems suspect.

"Spinner's End", IMO, humanizes Narcissa and, to some extent,
Bellatrix, who is always depicted as a sadist and fanatic elsewhere,
and it contributes to the humanization of Snape, already begun, as you
seem to be pointing out, with SWM.

Carol, who thinks that JKR's villains (not including Snape, who is at
most a quasi-villain) are too often stereotyped and cartoonish, and
such glimpses of their humanity (or humanness?) are all too rare





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 20:06:09 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:06:09 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:  DH 22, The Deathly Hallows
In-Reply-To: <EFEFA0CC-8988-4881-A594-CC1F3DC9A477@acsalaska.net>
Message-ID: <g2mmrh+7kj1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183206

Laura Lynn Walsh wrote:
<snip>
> Why does it follow that Voldemort could not have known that
Marvolo's ring was a Hallow.  In fact, that would make it seem more
LIKELY to me.  Voldemort loved trophies and he thought he was the only
one who knew about this one.  Why couldn't he just make it into a
horcrux and bury it until he finds the rest of them?

Carol responds:
If Voldemort knew about the Deathly Hallows, which would make him the
Master of Death if he had all three together, he'd have set out in
pursuit of them rather than splitting his precious soul into seven
pieces. If you have the Hallows, you (theoretically) don't need
Horcruxes. But Voldemort doesn't even know about the Elder Wand until
he forces Ollivander to tell him about it--and Ollivander, we find out
later, knows nothing about the other Hallows and has never even heard
the term "Deathly Hallows." It appears to be very esoteric knowledge,
known only to a very few (DD, Grindelwald, and, of all people,
Xenophilius Lovegood among them).

laura: 
> It seems more likely to me that the reason Harry can know that
Voldemort doesn't know about the Hallows is that, if he knew and if he
suspected that the ring was one of the Hallows, and since he also
knows that Harry has an invisibility cloak, it would make VM more
interested in capturing Harry's cloak, in case it is the right one,
rather than killing Harry.  None of the DEs chasing Harry ever mention
trying to steal the cloak.

Carol responds:
True. I'm sure that Harry and JKR thought the same thing, but took it
for granted. 

At any rate, Harry knows that LV didn't know about the Elder Wand
until Ollivander told him. He knows, as you point out, that LV has
never shown the slightest interest in his Invisibility Cloak. He knows
that LV turned the Resurrection Stone into a Horcrux, risking the
destruction of any other powers it possessed in so doing. He knows
that LV continued making Horcruxes, using objects associated with
Hogwarts or his own heritage when possible rather than seeking out the
Elder Wand and the cloak. He later seeks the wand, not as one of the
three Hallows, which he clearly doesn't know about, but, as Harry
deduces, to make himself invincible.

Carol, noting that all of Harry's brilliant deductions lead him to the
wrong conclusion (that he should seek the Hallows rather than the
Horcruxes) and again reminded of Snape 




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 21:45:10 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:45:10 -0000
Subject: Harry and Charlie
In-Reply-To: <g2m0g0+p015@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2msl6+ldk3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183207

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> > Montavilla47:
> > I think what JKR tends to do is veer from one side to the other.  
> There are
> > times in her stories where it seems obvious that we're supposed to be
> > reading HP like we'd read a Roald Dahl story--and take no more mind 
> of 
> > Draco being bounced up and down than Veruca Salt dropping in the nut 
> > bin.  
> 
> Magpie:
> She wrote that scene strangely if she wanted me to take it that way. I 
> know plenty of people do read the scene as just funny, but I did, and 
> thought it was written in a sympathetic way, what with the little 
> ferret squealing in pain as he smacked against hard stone, leaving 
> Draco with his eyes filled with tears. Yipes!
> 
> When the villain was revealed I thought the idea was to give us a clue 
> that he was really a sadist DE so we were supposed to notice that.
> 
> -m


Montavilla47:
Exactly.  She puts in these touches that make the Draco, in this case,
just a little too sympathetic for the reader to really enjoy what's 
happening to him.

I could easily be wrong, because it's been ages since I read CatCF, but
I don't recall there being anything to draw sympathy to Augustus, Violet,
Veruca, or Mike when they are having horrible things done to them.  The
closest thing is that glimpse of them at the end (somewhat like the glimpses
we get of Marietta), when we see that Violet is still purple and squashed-
looking, or that Mike is tall again, but incredibly skinny.  I remember 
feeling a little sorry for them at that point.

But JKR will show you Draco being bounced, show you Harry enjoying it,
invite you to enjoy it, but mention that he's got tears in his eyes.  Or
show the Dursleys looking terrified as Dumbledore delivers this lecture
that most of the readers have been looking forward to for years.

And it's really easy to flip at that point and start to dislike Dumbledore--
if you didn't already dislike him for humiliating his own students at
the end of PS/SS.





From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 22:00:07 2008
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:00:07 -0000
Subject: Did Severus Murder
In-Reply-To: <g2mef4+avsi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2mth7+ifcc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183208

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>> Carol responds:
> In *your* head, I think you mean. Certainly not in mine. All that's
> involved is a piercing gaze, as if DD is looking into Snape's heart
> and mind, as he so often does with Harry. Legilimency may or may not
> be involved, but to extend the "piercing" gaze to refer to a split
> soul is reading in too much, IMO, especially since Harry has also,
> repeatedly, been pierced by that gaze--and by Snape's for that 
matter.
> Do you think that *Harry's* soul is damaged by DD's gaze, or that 
his
> eyes piercing *Harry* indicate that Harry's soul is damaged? 

Jack-A-Roe:
What I am saying is that she chose the word "pierced" with a reason 
and not twinkling eyes, or he looked at Snape or any other way of 
description.

Of course Harry's soul wasn't damaged. Whenever Harry got that look 
it was because he was hiding something, possibly like Snape is hiding 
his damaged soul.




> Carol earlier:
> > > Speculate all you like. I'm simply saying that *canon* gives us 
no
> indication that Snape ever killed anyone besides Dumbledore, and 
some
> > > indication (his concern for his soul
> > 
> > Jack-A-Roe:
> > Canon may not say it specifically, but it is an obvious 
> interpretation of the scene to me. Snape asking about his soul 
sounded
> more like him complaining that Dumbledore liked Draco better than 
him.
>  Something like "your more worried about his soul than mine" to 
which
> DD responds that only know if yours is already damaged. After that
> Snape nods as if to agree with DD that it won't make it any worse.
> 
> Carol responds:
> But that *isn't* what DD says. He says, "You alone know whether it
> will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation" 
(DH
> Am. ed. 683). So Snape has to decide whether this act is murder or
> something like euthanasia, a humanitarian act. If it's murder, it 
will
> split his soul. If it's an act of kindness, rescuing DD from a worse
> fate, perhaps it won't. It has nothing to do with any previous 
actions
> he may have committed. 
> 
> Jack-a-Roe: 
> > One of the next scenes we see after this is Snape again being
> somewhat childish. It's the one where Snape is complaining to DD 
that
> he is telling Potter things that he isn't telling Snape and DD tells
> him to come to his office later on. Again it comes across as you 
like
> him better than you like me.
> 
> Carol responds:
> You seem to be forgetting the context. Snape is saying, in essence
> (and truthfully, IMO) that DD is making unreasonable demands on him
> (in particular the request to kill DD, which Snape is having second
> thoughts about, despite his Unbreakable Vow) without fully confiding
> in him. Again, we have a parallel with Harry, who thinks almost
> exactly the same thing: "Look at what he asked from me, Hermione! 
Risk
> your life, Harry! And again! And again! And don't expect me to 
explain
> everything, just trust me blindly, just trust that I know what I'm
> doing, trust me even though I don't trust you! Never the whole 
truth!
> Never!" (DH Am. ed. 362).

Jack-A-Roe:
Harry is also acting somewhat childish. Although his is also more of 
frustration of not knowing exactly what he is to do. 

Carol:
>> I was struck by the parallels between Harry's situation and 
Snape's,
> as well as their similar reactions. it's just a shame, IMO, that 
Harry
> didn't know earlier exactly how much Snape had done, how many 
dangers
> he had exposed himself to, for Dumbledore and for Lily.

Jack-A-Roe:
If Harry had known before, it would have made his scene of 
forgiveness of Snape much less powerful. Without it, Harry does a 
great thing by going to see Snape after he was attacked. Very few 
people could have forgiven Snape the treatment he had received from 
him. Not to mention one of his last scenes with Snape is watching 
Snape kill Dumbledore.

> 
> Carol, who does not deny that merely belonging to a terrorist
> organization, not to mention revealing the Prophecy, made Snape an
> accessory to murder but sees no evidence whatever that he killed
> anyone directly before committing the "murder" on the tower at DD's
> request

Jack-A-Roe:
I agree that there is no written canon that says he had murdered 
anyone. But I also believe that there is enough in between the lines 
to believe that he had done so.





From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 22:19:03 2008
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:19:03 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:  DH 22, The Deathly Hallows
In-Reply-To: <g2j3ss+inqv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2mukn+r6d8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183209

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmnabers" <jmnabers at ...> wrote:
>
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter 
22, 
> The Deathly Hallows
> 
> The chapter begins as Harry, Ron, and Hermione make their escape 
from 
> the Death Eaters at the Lovegood household. Hermione casts 
protective 
> spells over them as they return to their campsite; Harry and Ron 
both 
> recognize her genius at getting them out of yet another tight spot.
> 
> The discussion quickly turns to the wealth of new questions that 
> Xenophilius has raised: Is Luna still alive? Was the trip to the 
> Lovegood household just a waste of time? Is there any truth in the 
> story of the Deathly Hallows?
> 
> It is the last question that sparks the most vehement discussion. 
> Hermione, predictably, finds the entire story implausible if not 
> ridiculous. Ron disagrees, pointing out that lying under pressure 
is 
> more difficult than she can imagine. As they argue, the three start 
> to put together bits and pieces of information that might support 
(or 
> in Hermione's case, disprove) the story of the three brothers.
> 
> Hermione is adamant that there can't be any truth to any of the 
> magical items, referring to the Resurrection Stone while making 
> finger quotation marks to show her disdain. Harry realizes that 
talk 
> of living with the dead frightens her and he changes the subject to 
> the grave they found in Godric's Hollow.
> 
> Hermione, with Kreacher's help, has discovered that the Peverell 
> family was pure-blood but has been extinct in the male line for 
> centuries. Harry suddenly remembers that Marvolo Gaunt, Voldemort's 
> grandfather, claimed to be a descendent of the Peverell family. In 
an 
> intuitive leap, Harry speculates that Marvolo's ring must contain 
the 
> Resurrection Stone; furthermore, he realizes that Voldemort must 
not 
> know about the powerful Deathly Hallows if he risked destroying one 
> by turning it into a horcrux.
> 
> Harry, completely convinced that the Deathly Hallows are real, is 
> sure that the key to defeating Voldemort is to find the 3 objects 
and 
> become the master of Death. He realizes that he must be a 
descendent 
> of Ignotus Peverell and that his invisibility cloak must be one of 
> the Hallows. He also is convinced that the snitch from Dumbledore 
> must contain the Resurrection Stone in the form of the destroyed 
> horcrux.
> 
> Harry realizes he would only need the Elder Wand to complete the 
> trio. He intuitively understands that Voldemort must be after the 
> Elder Wand, too. Voldemort, not knowing its true power, wants it 
only 
> for its alleged invincibility: the ultimate weapon that will 
destroy 
> Harry.
> 
> Hermione tries valiantly to convince him that none of it can 
possibly 
> be true, but Harry will not be swayed. He realizes there is some 
> truth in Xenophilius's assessment of her as close-minded.
> 
> Weeks pass. Harry can think only of the Hallows; Hermione and Ron 
can 
> think only of the horcruxes. Harry's scar begins to prickle again, 
> but the images he sees are fuzzy and blurred. Finally, one night in 
> March, they are able to pick up the Potterwatch program.
> 
> Harry, Ron, and Hermione are heartened to hear the voices of old 
> friends that are supporting them. However, there is also 
distressing 
> news. Ted Tonks has been murdered, Dean Thomas is missing, and 
Hagrid 
> is on the run. As they hear the voices of their friends, the three 
> are overcome with sadness, gratitude, and shame. Finally, Fred's 
> voice appears and Harry laughs for the first time in weeks.
> 
> As the program ends, Harry's excitement prompts him to make a 
> terrible error. He utters the taboo name, Voldemort, and they are 
> instantaneously surrounded by Death Eaters.
> 
> 
> Discussion Questions:
> 1) Why does Hermione do her best to protect Xenophilius from the 
> Death Eaters? Is it only because of her feelings of friendship for 
> Luna? Or did she, like Harry, recognize his desperation to save his 
> child?

I think she feels some friendship for Luna but also knows the 
desperation of trying to save those that you love. After all she 
obliviated her parents so she has some experience here.

> 
> 2) Why does Hermione consider the trips to Godric's Hollow and the 
> Lovegood household "a waste of time"?

Neither led them to a horcrux or a clue for one and it brought in the 
Hallows which she deems unimportant.


> 
> 3) Harry realizes that his "talk of living with dead people" had 
> scared of Hermione. Why is living with dead people comforting to 
> Harry and yet frightening to Hermione?

Seeing his parents is one of Harry's greatest desires. Hermione 
hasn't ever lost anyone that close to her for her to miss that 
greatly.


> 
> 4) Why is Harry able to put the story together so quickly? It says 
> his "imagination was racing ahead, far beyond Ron and Hermione's." 
Is 
> it imagination, experience, or something else that allows Harry to 
> make the intuitive leaps that other cannot?

Harry is willing to believe the story which puts him ahead of 
Hermione. Ron is still trying to suck up to Hermione so I don't think 
he is trying as hard as Harry.


> 
> 5) When Harry realizes that Voldemort must also want the Elder 
Wand, 
> it "extinguishes" all of his hope and happiness. Why?

Harry is already fighting someone who has made it his goal not to 
die. Add in an unbeatable wand and Harry feels he is beaten and there 
isn't anything he or anyone else can do.


> 
> 6) If Harry is right, Dumbledore did not tell him the secret to 
being 
> the master of Death because he needed Harry to discover it for 
> himself. Does this agree with Dumbledore's previous treatment of 
> Harry? How would Harry be different if Dumbledore did tell him what 
> he needed rather than letting Harry work it out for himself? What 
> role do Ron and Hermione play in his discoveries?


Dumbledore hardly ever said the entire story to anyone, it was part 
of his personality. I think he also wanted Harry to learn to think. I 
don't think he could have told Harry the entire truth because he 
didn't think Harry could handle it until it was close to the time he 
had to sacrifice himself.

> 
> 7) Harry wishes his scar would burn again because "for the first 
time 
> ever, he and Voldemort were united in wanting the very same thing." 
> When his visions do return, they are blurred. Why are the visions 
> different now than they have been in the past?

I think the visions are blurred because Voldemort was still trying to 
block the connection but his emotional outbursts were seeping 
through. I also think Harry was starting to get better at protecting 
his mind even if he didn't realize it yet.


> 
> 8) Harry feels that Ron and Hermione are obsessed with the 
horcuxes. 
> She accuses him of being obsessed with the Hallows and tells him 
that 
> they are "the ones trying to do what Dumbledore wanted us to do!" 
Why 
> are they at an impasse over the way to proceed? Why does 
Harry "give 
> up on her"?

He gives up, because Hermione doesn't change her mind easily. She 
also doesn't truly believe in the Hallows. She is more of a bricks 
and mortar type of person. She needs solid facts, unfortunately magic 
doesn't always provide that. That was what she has needed to learn 
since the beginning of the story.


> 
> 9) As Harry retreats into his own imagination, Ron starts to take 
> charge. Is Ron only capable of leadership because Harry is 
distracted 
> or is it something else?


I think ron is trying to make up for leaving. Also he is still 
sucking up to Hermione.

> 
> 10)If Harry is so determined that finding the Elder Wand is the way 
> to proceed, why do they waste months without making any real 
> progress? What, if anything, is achieved in these long months of 
> camping?

I think it was just trying to keep the timing of the other books.


> 
> 11)What is it about the Potterwatch broadcast that makes Harry feel 
> more connected to the world?

He remembers he is not alone in the struggle. It is something to pick 
up his spirits after all of the drudgery they've experienced. I 
compare it to having a fire when you are camping in the wilderness. 
It just makes you feel better.


> 
> 12) Why do Lupin's words cause Harry to feel "a mixture of 
gratitude 
> and shame"?

He likes the compliments of someone he respects and he feels bad for 
yelling at Lupin.


> 
> 13) Why does Lupin say that Harry's instincts are "good and nearly 
> always right"? Are these words in reference to the past, or are 
they 
> meant to foreshadow events to come?

Because Harry's natural instincts are almost always good. It's better 
for him to trust them then to over think things.


> 
> 14) Is the rush of emotions Harry felt while listening to 
Potterwatch 
> responsible for his reckless saying of Voldemort's name? If not, 
what 
> causes him to break the taboo that he's kept for months?

I think the Potterwatch made him feel normal again. For Harry being 
normal means saying Voldemorts name. I don't believe it was 
intentional on his part.

> 
> jmnabers

Thanks to jmnabers for the fine job on the discussion questions.




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 23:23:35 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:23:35 -0000
Subject: Did Severus Murder
In-Reply-To: <g2ko04+q9lv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2n2dn+68s9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183210

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie"
<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
 
> Not to say that Snape has murdered anybody, but I think he could 
> still be concerned for his soul if it had been torn before. It's not 
> just the first murder that tears it. Presumably every murder tears 
> it. If he had killed somebody and it was painful that might give him 
> more reason to not want it to happen again.
 
> Which makes me wonder if you can do anything to make it whole again 
> or at least heal it. Does it affect your experience in the afterlife 
> if it's torn once, twice or a number of times? Can you fix that 
> through remorse?


I don't know about the afterlife, but I believe that it's very
possible to repair the soul through remorse. According to Hermione (or
rather, to  the "Secrets of the Darkest Art" :-)), even a soul a part
of which was used to make a Horcrux *is* repairable, although "the
pain of it can destroy you" (p.103). If a soul is split by a murder,
but the torn piece is not concealed inside a Horcrux, it would be
certainly easier to repair this damaged soul! 

The soul bit inside a Horcrux is bound to it by some powerful spell,
so it's understandable why it would be "excruciatingly painful" to try
and return this bit to its rightful place and make the soul whole
again. Still, it's possible, if we are to believe the "Secrets of the
Darkest Art". This means that if a murderer didn't make a Horcrux,
it's even more realistic to make the torn piece part of the soul
again, if the murderer sincerely repented and payed for his crime.
That's what I think, anyway :-).


zanooda




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 00:24:36 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:24:36 -0000
Subject: 'Deathbed Confession' / Ron's  H-H insecurity/Did Severus Murder/Did DD Like
In-Reply-To: <g2hv9r+cu61@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2n604+h08h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183211

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
<catlady at ...> wrote:

> > Zanooda wrote in
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183142>:
 
> > Just out of curiosity, how do you know that Snape committed 
> > murder? 


> Catlady wrote:
 
> I believe Voldemort required all his Death Eaters to commit
> a murder (as part of a group of murderers)


zanooda:

Oh, I know that some readers believe that. There is nothing wrong with
believing :-)! The problem is, the poster I was responding to didn't
write "I believe", like you did. So I assumed that I missed some
reference to Snape murdering someone either in the books (not likely
:-)), or in some JKR's interview (very likely :-)). That's why I asked
the question. Now I know it was just an opinion, so it's OK - I didn't
miss anything :-)!

As for what *I* believe - I'm not sure that every aspiring Death Eater
was required to murder to join. This would turn off some of LV's
supporters who liked his pure-blood ideology, but didn't see LV for
what he really was. If some basically decent and idealistic kid, like
Regulus, dreamed to join the cause, wouldn't it turn him off if the
first thing he was asked to do was to go and murder someone in cold
blood? I'm just not sure.

I agree that Snape making poisons for LV makes him responsible for any
deaths that occurred because of that, but still, it's not the same
thing as murdering someone directly. I also believe that Snape could
kill someone in a battle (there was a war going on, after all), but I
don't consider this "murder". And I think that Snape could avoid even
this, considering his ability to "slither out of action". I also want
to say that there is practically no canon on this matter, so everyone
is free to believe whatever he/she wants :-)! 




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 03:48:44 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 03:48:44 -0000
Subject: Reactions (was Re: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2j6qo+ka68@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2nhus+3v9q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183212

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> 
wrote:
 
> Off hand, I don't remember if we saw any other bad guys die.


zanooda:

How about Wormtail? Maybe he is not pure evil, but I still consider 
him a bad guy, and we saw him die :-). For me, it was a rather 
shocking death - I didn't expect anything like this. I didn't feel 
even a little pity for him for some reason though.


> potioncat wrote:

> How did the rest of you react to the deaths in the series?


zanooda:

No time right now to write about every single death, just a few that 
popped into my head.
 
Dumbledore - I was in total shock (and cried). I don't know much 
about literature, so I had no idea that HP was some kind of 
Bidungsroman (did I spell it right, Carol? :-)), where the hero's 
mentor is supposed to die so that the hero could continue on his 
journey alone. The possibility that DD could die never even crossed 
my mind. I found out about Bildungsroman (?) only later, after I 
joined this group.

Sirius - I was not very emotional about him (which means that I 
didn't cry :-)), but I definitely felt sorry about his death. He was 
such a young man (compared to me, anyway :-)), and he had so much to 
live for. He was not at his best in OotP (understandable!), but I saw 
in earlier books the person that he could be. Besides, Harry needed 
him ;-(.

Dobby - I still cry every time I read it ;-(.

Fred - it was very unexpected to me. I mean, I was afraid that one 
(or both) of the twins could die, but, when George lost his ear, I 
somehow decided that JKR was done with the twins and they would stay 
alive. Then, when I was sure it wouldn't be any of them, she killed 
Fred just like that :-)!

Lupin and Tonks - again, not very much emotion on my part, but I felt 
very sorry for Lupin - he's just learned how to be happy, and he had 
so little time to enjoy this new happiness ;-(. 

Bella - I was glad that she died. Consider me bloodthirsty, but I 
really hoped that someone would kill her at last. I remember 
thinking "Finally!" when Molly killed her.

That's all that comes to mind right now ...  





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 05:49:08 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:49:08 -0000
Subject: Reactions (was Re: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2nhus+3v9q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2np0l+7dl3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183213

zanooda wrote:
<snip>
> Dumbledore - I was in total shock (and cried). I don't know much 
about literature, so I had no idea that HP was some kind of 
Bidungsroman (did I spell it right, Carol? :-)), where the hero's 
mentor is supposed to die so that the hero could continue on his 
journey alone. The possibility that DD could die never even crossed my
mind. I found out about Bildungsroman (?) only later, after I joined
this group.

Carol responds:
You've spelled it correctly (only German nouns are always
capitalized), but I think you have Bildungsroman, essentially, a story
of growing up, confused with the hero's journey as described by Joseph
Campbell (who believes that all stories are essentially the same, with
only a few variations). "David Copperfield" is probably the best
example of a Bildungsroman that's familiar to most readers; LOTR
exemplifies the hero's journey. (there are lots of other examples, of
course.)

See http://www.victorianweb.org/genre/hader1.html
and
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/storytelling/plots/hero_journey/hero_journey.htm

I'm pretty sure that JKR was thinking of Campbell when she said that
the hero had to lose his mentor in the genre she was working in.

BTW, my reaction was similar to yours but mixed with anger at JKR for
"betraying" me by making Snape evil after all. It took me a little
while to reread the last chapters, see those hints in the duel with
Snape that all might not be as it seemed, but thank goodness for this
group or I would have thought it was all my own efforts to delude
myself that Snape was good! (I *did* mourn Dumbledore, but my concern
was all for Snape.)

zanooda:
> Fred - it was very unexpected to me. I mean, I was afraid that one 
(or both) of the twins could die, but, when George lost his ear, I
somehow decided that JKR was done with the twins and they would stay
alive. Then, when I was sure it wouldn't be any of them, she killed
Fred just like that :-)!

Carol responds:
I was particularly affected by the irony of his death. He had just
been reconciled with Percy and it was Percy, not George, who was with
him when he died (with laughter on his lips), Percy who didn't want to
leave him. How sad for Percy--and for George, who probably would have
wanted to die, too. BTW, I didn't react with anything more than shock
the first time through because I was fearful for Snape (with good
reason, as it turns out), but the second time around, I cried for Fred
and Percy and George, the dead brother and the bereaved survivors.
<snip>

zanooda: 
> That's all that comes to mind right now ...

Carol:
What, not Severus?

Carol, who has gone from car trouble to computer trouble to allergies
and is wondering what next!!!





From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Wed Jun 11 12:38:27 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:38:27 -0500
Subject: Reactions (was Re: Did you LIKE Snape?
References: <1213186445.3163.70667.m46@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <001301c8cbc0$0c7235f0$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>

No: HPFGUIDX 183214

I still find the death that hit me the hardest was Cedric's.

So young, thinking he was playing in a "game" of sorts, with rules and 
safeguards.  Having, with Harry, done the right thing several times in 
the TWT as a whole and inside the maze that night.  And then:  "kill 
the spare" and it is over.

Jerri 





From falkeli at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 14:25:09 2008
From: falkeli at yahoo.com (hp_fan_2008)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:25:09 -0000
Subject: Harry's instincts (was Re: CHAPDISC:  DH 22, The Deathly Hallows)
In-Reply-To: <g2k7vr+54pv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2on85+sbla@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183215

Carol:

<Snip answers 1-11>
> I think that Lupin is saying that Harry was right in this specific
> instance, and that he has often been right before. Still, there's at
> least one instance, the ill-fated attempt to rescue Sirius Black (who
> would not have been in any danger had Harry not tried to "save" him)
> that Lupin can't ignore. *Nearly* always and always are not the same.

hp_fan_2008:

Actually, I think that as long as Kreacher belonged to Sirius, Harry
had no chance of getting the locket - so, in fact, Harry's instinct
was correct (although for the  wrong reason).

Carol:
<snip>
> And, ironically, Harry's instinct or impulse to
> say the name "Voldemort," which occurs shortly after he hears this bit
> of advice, nearly results in disaster.

hp_fan_2008:

And in Harry figuring out where to find the next Horcrux (again, his
instinct.) This seems to be a recurring theme - Harry makes the right
decision for the wrong reason. See also Harry saving Wormtail's life,
his use of the Sectumsempra curse on Malfoy (resulting in him hiding
the Potions book at the right place) and his decision to watch Snape's
memories.

                 hp_fan_2008




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 18:03:48 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:03:48 -0000
Subject: Harry's instincts (was Re: CHAPDISC:  DH 22, The Deathly Hallows)
In-Reply-To: <g2on85+sbla@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2p424+j7ht@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183216

Carol earlier:
> 
> <Snip answers 1-11>
> > I think that Lupin is saying that Harry was right in this specific
instance, and that he has often been right before. Still, there's at
least one instance, the ill-fated attempt to rescue Sirius Black (who
would not have been in any danger had Harry not tried to "save" him)
that Lupin can't ignore. *Nearly* always and always are not the same.
> 
> hp_fan_2008:
> 
> Actually, I think that as long as Kreacher belonged to Sirius, Harry
had no chance of getting the locket - so, in fact, Harry's instinct
was correct (although for the  wrong reason).

Carol responds:
I'm sorry. I don't see the connection. I was saying that Lupin's
statement that Harry's instincts are nearly always right means (IMO)
two things: first, that Harry was right that Lupin should not go with
them (and so, of course, he's forgiven Harry's seeming rudeness in
making that statement), and, second, that Harry's instinct, though
ususally right, has failed him at least once in his rash attempt to
rescue his godfather from the MoM (when, in fact, SB was safe at home
in 12 GP). Nothing to do with Kreacher (except as Kreacher was a tool
for the Malfoys and LV) or with the locket.
> 
> Carol:
> <snip>
> > And, ironically, Harry's instinct or impulse to say the name
"Voldemort," which occurs shortly after he hears this bit of advice,
nearly results in disaster.
> 
> hp_fan_2008:
> 
> And in Harry figuring out where to find the next Horcrux (again, his
instinct.) This seems to be a recurring theme - Harry makes the right
decision for the wrong reason.

Carol responds:
It felt to me like a cheap plot device or trick. JKR needed the
Snatchers to get HRH to the Malfoys so that Harry could find out where
the cup Horcrux was hidden, so he suddenly defies Ron (and the taboo)
by saying "Voldemort." I suppose he's just been humoring him all this
time, not really believing in the taboo, but I don't like it. BTW, he
also makes the *wrong* decision for the *right* reason, as in the
attempted rescue of his godfather, and what seems to be the wrong
decision for the wrong reason in going to Godric's Hollow. Except for
seeing the name Ignotus Peverell on the gravestone, a piece of the
Hallows puzzle, the only benefit obtained by that trip was Voldemort's
finding of the photograph that Harry dropped.

If we're going to apply a theme or motif here, I'd say that it's
unintended consequences. Harry certainly doesn't intend to bring the
Snatchers; the Snatchers don't intend to have their prisoners escape,
armed with new knowledge and stolen wands, not to mention two
additional escapees; Bellatrix doesn't intend to reveal her master's
secret; Wormtail doesn't intend to betray himself to his death with a
small impulse toward pity or mercy. With the exception of Dobby's
death, the consequences of Harry's saying Voldemort work out to
Harry's advantage. Also, evil (the kidnapping, etc.) results in good
(knowledge of the Horcrux) and good results in evil (Aberforth's
sending Dobby, though it also has good consequences, results in
Dobby's death).

hp_fan_2008:
 See also Harry saving Wormtail's life, his use of the Sectumsempra
curse on Malfoy (resulting in him hiding the Potions book at the right
place) and his decision to watch Snape's memories.

Carol responds:
I'd say that Harry saved Wormtail for the right reason (so that Lupin
and Black wouldn't become murderers, and he should not have used the
Sectumsempra Curse on a person for any reason without knowing what it
was (ask someone who knows Latin; use a Latin dictionary; test it on a
pillow--anything but using a curse labeled "for enemies" without
knowing its effects!) As for his decision to watch Snape's memories, I
suppose that was done for the wrong reason, but that's true of his GoF
and OoP Pensieve excursions as well. Also, I see no benefit to hiding
the Potions book except the coincidence of using the tiara to mark it
(too bad Harry didn't see, as half of us did, that the thing was
probably the Ravenclaw Horcrux!)

Again, I think that unintended consequences is more applicable that
"right thing for the wrong reason." And, of course, Harry's uncanny
good luck is also in play.

Carol, thinking that we could add Crabbe's Fiendfyre to the list (evil
intent with good consequences or right thing for the wrong reason, as
you prefer)





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jun 11 18:46:07 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:46:07 -0000
Subject: Harry and Charlie
In-Reply-To: <g2l55t+fsnb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2p6hf+7luf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183217

> Montavilla47:
> I think what JKR tends to do is veer from one side to the other. 
There are times in her stories where it seems obvious that we're
supposed to be reading HP like we'd read a Roald Dahl story--and take
no more mind of  Draco being bounced up and down than Veruca Salt
dropping in the nut  bin.  
<snip>
> And, having crossed the line from sympathizing with the good
> guys, and sympathizing with the bad ones, I looked back
> and saw that there were a lot more of these odd jujitsu
> passages, where the person who is supposed to look bad
> ends up looking nicer than the heroes.
> 
> But, it would be easy for JKR to have made her "bad" characters
> so unsympathetic that I wouldn't even notice.  So, kudos to her
> for creating sympathetic bad guys.
>

Pippin:
I don't think the point is to develop the "right" amount of sympathy
for a character in the reader. I think the point is for the reader to
realize how much the sense of sympathy or compassion is dependent on
(and may be manipulated through) context. We sense from the context
that a report of suffering is not to be taken seriously, or that the
suffering was in some sense deserved, and this affects our reactions.

It may be obvious from the immediate context that we're supposed to
think the ton tongue toffee incident screamingly funny (I have to
admit I did) -- but I think we're also supposed to notice that our
view of it changes when we have a different context.

Pippin




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 23:38:49 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:38:49 -0000
Subject: Reactions (was Re: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2np0l+7dl3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2pnm9+ho5n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183218

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> I think you have Bildungsroman, essentially, a story
> of growing up, confused with the hero's journey


zanooda:

Hehe, doesn't matter, I didn't know anything about the hero's journey
either :-)! The point is, as I found out, some readers expected DD to
die, but I so didn't :-)! That's why his death came as a shock.


> Carol responds:

> I cried for Fred and Percy and George, the dead brother and the 
> bereaved survivors.


zanooda:

You know, we should have known that Fred was a goner, when he started
talking about his future wedding in "The Wedding" ... ;-(.


> Carol:

> What, not Severus?


zanooda:

This is a separate story :-). I was disappointed and angry that he had
to die at all, you know. I am one of those who think that Snape should
have stayed alive, or, at least, that he should have died *after*
Harry found out the truth about him. It's not because I like him, but
because I believe this would be so much more interesting. There was a
thread about this recently, and, even if I admit that the deathbed
confession was an adequate way to give Harry the needed information, I
still think that Snape dying was an easy way out for Harry, for Snape,
and even for JKR. 

I wanted Harry to understand that he was wrong about Snape while Snape
was still alive and learn to work together with him against LV. I
wanted Snape to understand and admit that Harry was not another James
while he (Snape) was still alive. I wanted JKR to think of some way to
make it all happen :-). Alas, we can't always get what we want ;-(. I
expected Snape to help Harry much more in DH. I thought someone
unknown would help again and again, and Harry would wonder who that
mysterious ally was, etc. Yeah, right :-)! It turned out Snape didn't
even know about the Horcruxes, so he couldn't help Harry much. Ah,
well ...

As for Snape's death scene itself - well, it was gruesome and scary,
but, as I said, more than anything I was disappointed how pointless
this death was. I was sure by this time that Snape would die, but not
this way! I would like something more satisfying (and by this I mean
something more heroic :-)). It was really lucky that Harry was there
to get the memories, otherwise this horrible death would be for nothing.




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 00:29:35 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:29:35 -0000
Subject: Harry's instincts (was Re: CHAPDISC:  DH 22, The Deathly Hallows)
In-Reply-To: <g2p424+j7ht@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2pqlf+t8rs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183219

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
 
> > hp_fan_2008:
 
> > Actually, I think that as long as Kreacher belonged to Sirius, 
> > Harry had no chance of getting the locket - so, in fact, Harry's 
> > instinct was correct (although for the  wrong reason).
 
> Carol responds:

> I'm sorry. I don't see the connection. 


zanooda:

I can't be sure, but it seems to me this means that, to find out about
the locket, Harry needed to own Kreacher, and for Harry to own
Kreacher, Sirius needed to die - something of the sort. Sorry if I'm
wrong, hp-fan :-)! It seems to me though that Harry didn't need to be
Kreacher's master to find out about the locket. Couldn't they
interrogate Kreacher anyway? Sirius could have ordered him to answer.
I wonder what would be different in DH, if Sirius was alive ...


 
> Carol responds:

> With the exception of Dobby's death, the consequences of Harry's 
> saying Voldemort work out to Harry's advantage. 


zanooda:

Maybe a little off the topic, but I wanted to add one more "if" to the
list of other "ifs" leading to the discovery of the cup Horcrux (*if*
Harry didn't say LV's name, *if* the Snatchers took the captives to
the Ministry instead of the Malfoys', *if* Bellatrix didn't notice the
sword etc.). It's about Hermione and the sword - she usually kept it
in her magic bag, but that evening she took it out to polish it ("just
for something to do"), that's why the Snatchers found it in the tent.
So, *if* Hermione had something else to do that evening and the sword
was still in the bag as always, it wouldn't be found by the Snatchers,
Bella wouldn't see it and Harry wouldn't guess that the cup was at
Gringotts :-).




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 01:17:50 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:17:50 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2976t+93rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2ptfu+ksh1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183220

> Mike:
> We've had a recent thread that mourns the passing of Snape. I 
don't, 
> but that led to this query. In the interest of full disclosure, I 
am 
> a Marauder fan and Sirius Black is my favorite character.

Zara:
In the interest of full disclosure...Eew. Though I put up with 
Marauders, since Harry loves most of them, and Harry is a great kid.

> Mike: 
> In that respect, I too liked Severus Snape. I too wanted to know 
why 
> he was the way he was. I even color myself slightly disappointed 
that 
> his love for Lily was the *only* driving force that propelled him 
to 
> do what he did for Harry and the good side. I wanted to see 
something 
> more. Maybe some of you did see more, if so maybe you could cite 
some 
> canon for your belief? 

Zara:
I have to say this is a position I have difficulty wrapping my brain 
around. At the time Snape showed up on the hill to warn Dumbledore 
about the danger, and throughout the remainder of the first war, when 
Snape was keeping his end of the bargain to do "Anything" in exchange 
for the protection of the Potters by spying on Voldemort for Albus, I 
can see this view; I can even, perhaps, agree with it. While Lily 
lived, there was some chance Snape would get something of worth to 
him out of it. But after she died, I don't see how she, and she 
alone, could continue to be the "only driving force". She was dead. 
Everything Snape was ever going to get of her, he had already, in his 
memories. 

To me, if the motivation was in large part guilt - that is already 
not "just Lily" and "just love". Remorse, certainly the sort of 
remorse that would drive a person to risk their lives over the course 
of years, would seem to me to require a sense of having done 
something wrong. And doing things because they are right vs. wrong 
is "something more".

> Mike:
> Up until the very end, all we 
> were shown was that Severus did it all for Lily. The Doe Patronus 
> followed by his answer to Dumbledore: "Always"; 

Zara:
And yet, he went along with Albus' plan in the end, even though it 
was counter to the mission he had taken on himself to keep Harry 
alive "for Lily". And I will not repeat the actions several posters 
have listed, that served the good side/Albus/Hogwarts, but did 
nothing for Harry/Lily. For at least one of them, a motivation is 
explicitly provided by the text (sparing an old man pain and 
humiliation, e. g.). For others, the reason "for Lily" seems simply 
not to apply. 

> Mike:
> But that wasn't my question, was it? ;-) I wanted to know if you 
> liked Severus Snape. 

Zara:
Oh, well then. "Like" does not do my feelings justice. I very much 
like Snape, and admire him, and sympathize with him, even while 
recognizing he has some room for improvement in certain departments.

> Mike:
> If you were in the Potterverse, would you be mates with him? If 
your 
> answer is yes, is it unqualified? That is, would you have been 
mates 
> when he was just pre-Hogwarts, during Hogwarts as a student, only 
> after he returned to Dumbledore to plea for Lily's life, or do you 
> have no qualifications? 

Zara:
In my case, an unqualified yes. But the extent to which such a 
friendship could have happened would depend on many things. Had I 
been another young witch living in the old neighborhood, I would have 
liked to be friends with Sev. In school, I wonder how we might have 
met to *be* friends, (I expect I would have been a Ravenclaw - 
perhaps we could have met in the library <g>). As an adult, perhaps 
also teaching at Hogwarts, sure.

Of course, this does not mean Sev would have wanted to be friends 
with ME. I was no Lily, pretty, popular, and a "catch", at school. 
And later in his life - I'm not sure he would have allowed himself to 
get particularly close to anyone new.

> Mike:
> If you wanted to be more than mates with Severus, umm, ... I don't 
> want to know! ;-)

Zara:
Well, having somehow achieved his romantic interest, it would seem a 
girl could count on his continuing loyalty. <bg>

Seriously, it is one of the things I admire about him. He's got a 
couple of the Hufflepuff virtues going for him (he could work 
on 'fair' if he cared to go 3 for 3).

> Mike:
> Is there any part of his behavior you disliked, abhorred, or just 
> thought was a little too over the top?

Zara:
He could be nicer. On the other hand, he's funny. He's got some great 
lines. Disliked would definitely be the strongest word I'd apply to 
his teaching - nothing else he did post-return bothers me in the 
slightest.

> Mike: 
> I didn't place most of the blame on him for James's and Lily's 
> deaths; in fact I put him third after LV and Pettigrew. But he does 
> get some blame there that cannot be expunged in my eyes. That he 
was 
> redeemed for that act, that he spent the rest of his life serving 
> penitence for that mistake, does not make me like him for it.

Zara:
For me it matters at least as much, that he attempted to prevent the 
consequences of his own mistake before it was too late. Yes, 
Voldemort was interested in the Potters because of Snape, but it was 
Snape who warned Albus of this interest, and Snape attempted to 
arrange for the most powerful wizard of their day to protect them as 
well. Both of which latter actions put Snape himself at risk.

> Mike:
> I have a particular revulsion for the Snape in PoA, in the 
Shreiking 
> Shack scene. 

Zara:
Not me. It is the one time in the series I wish, a la Alla, to slap 
someone. And it ain't Sev. Lupin, probably.

> Mike:
> I get that some people identify with Snape, just like lots of 
people 
> identified with Harry and I identified with Sirius. Did that make 
you 
> like Severus, or understand him, or both?

Zara:
I would consider myself an identifier with Snape, and yes, I think 
this makes me both like and understand him.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 02:20:22 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:20:22 -0000
Subject: Harry's instincts (was Re: CHAPDISC:  DH 22, The Deathly Hallows)
In-Reply-To: <g2pqlf+t8rs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2q156+k38g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183221

hp_fan_2008:
>  
> > > Actually, I think that as long as Kreacher belonged to Sirius,
Harry had no chance of getting the locket - so, in fact, Harry's  >
instinct was correct (although for the  wrong reason).
>  
Carol earlier:
> 
> > I'm sorry. I don't see the connection. 
> 
zanooda:
> 
> I can't be sure, but it seems to me this means that, to find out
about the locket, Harry needed to own Kreacher, and for Harry to own
Kreacher, Sirius needed to die - something of the sort. Sorry if I'm
wrong, hp-fan :-)! It seems to me though that Harry didn't need to be
Kreacher's master to find out about the locket. Couldn't they
interrogate Kreacher anyway? Sirius could have ordered him to answer.
I wonder what would be different in DH, if Sirius was alive ...
> 
Carol again:
But I meant, I don't see what Kreacher and the locket have to do with
my post, which was discussing Lupin's apparent forgiveness of Harry
and his remark about Harry's instincts being good and usually right. I
wasn't talking about Kreacher or the locket at all.

Carol earlier:
> 
> > With the exception of Dobby's death, the consequences of Harry's 
> > saying Voldemort work out to Harry's advantage. 
> 
zanooda:
> 
> Maybe a little off the topic, but I wanted to add one more "if" to
the list of other "ifs" leading to the discovery of the cup Horcrux
(*if* Harry didn't say LV's name, *if* the Snatchers took the captives
to the Ministry instead of the Malfoys', *if* Bellatrix didn't notice
the sword etc.). It's about Hermione and the sword - she usually kept
it in her magic bag, but that evening she took it out to polish it
("just for something to do"), that's why the Snatchers found it in the
tent.
> So, *if* Hermione had something else to do that evening and the
sword was still in the bag as always, it wouldn't be found by the
Snatchers, Bella wouldn't see it and Harry wouldn't guess that the cup
was at Gringotts :-).

Carol responds:

A few too many coincidences for comfort or credibility, wouldn't you say?

Carol, still confused regarding the connection between my post and
hp_fan's response 





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 20:43:37 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:43:37 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
Message-ID: <g2s1pp+qbt9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183222

So the conversation on OTC about JKR's latest story got me thinking 
about something we discussed a lot in the past, but I do not think I 
remember the answer to this particular question. Thinking about James 
and Sirius communicating with muggle police in the story made me 
think about muggles and wizards relationships, in particularly about 
why one would want to identify with muggles of the potterverse. Now 
before I will get the answer that's because we **are** muggles and I 
feel bad about how wizards treat muggles, let me just say that I do 
not think so ;)

No, I am not talking about wizards treating muggles badly; I fully 
understand the logic of this argument and to extent even agree with 
it. No, I do not agree that all wizards treat muggles badly, but I 
agree that even the best of them at some point behave 
condescendingly, so you do not have to tell me that even Arthur does 
that. And I know all about Tongue toffee and Dumbledore and Muggles, 
this is not what I am interested in learning right now. I mean I 
cannot stop anybody from talking about anything obviously, just 
trying to frame a question that I have.

So I guess the question is what are the reasons for you to identify 
with muggles in Potterverse? See for me, I do not see anybody in 
muggle world whom I can like or sympathize with, therefore I just, I 
guess cannot care for them that much. I mean, we see Dursleys and 
whom else? I guess we have Hermione's parents and those poor people 
that DE terrorize, but they are so minor characters that I am not 
sure that this is enough for me.

And I am not even talking about Dursleys deserving all that came to 
them, even though I do believe so that they did deserve it, I am 
simply asking that based on Dursleys I just cannot understand how one 
can root for muggles, you know?

And when I say I do not root for muggles much I do not mean that I 
want them to be killed, I do not mean that I want teenage Dumbledore 
and Grindelwald plans of domination over muggles to come to fruition, 
of course not! All that I am saying is that I do not get when wizards 
behave condescendingly and patronizingly towards Muggles, I do not 
get why it upsets people. I absolutely DO get why it would upset 
people if wizards cause muggles bodily harm, therefore while I enjoy 
Toffee incident a great deal, I get why it upsets people.

Are you identifying with Muggles because the world described so close 
to ours and you feel that if there are wizards living nearby same 
things like memory charms can happen to you and this is scary? This 
is just pure speculation, but as I said I do honestly want to know 
the underlying reasoning.

Because again on its own, I HATE memory charms, I think that it is 
such a violation of personal privacy that it is not even funny. But 
in these books it does not bother me at all; it feels to me simply as 
means for wizards to stay away from muggles. I mean, it is plausible 
for me to imagine JKR portraying some muggle and describing how charm 
caused him harm and be very angry about it, but she does not do any 
of it here.

Do you just think that what wizards do is wrong and even if we do not 
have positive characters from muggle world, it is still wrong no 
matter what? But then again, I get if you condemn wizards for it, but 
where is the sympathy for muggles comes from?

Having said all that, I have to say that this does not mean that I 
would want to live in WW as it stands at the end of the books either, 
I do have a hope that Harry and CO sufficiently transformed it for me 
to may want to stay longer after my imaginary visits there.

The thought of living in the world where any child of mine can have 
Snape as a teacher and have a headmaster who may ignore my wish to 
have my child be brought up by a friend of the family gives me chills.

The thought of living in the world where those who know how can 
mentally rape you and be privy to your deepest secrets (HA, not like 
we have much privacy in real world these days either) gives me chills 
as well.

But all the characters I like live in WW and that what makes me 
rooting for it.

Thanks guys,

Alla





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Jun 12 21:07:36 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:07:36 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2s1pp+qbt9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2s36o+mj6q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183223

Alla:
> So I guess the question is what are the reasons for you to identify 
> with muggles in Potterverse? See for me, I do not see anybody in 
> muggle world whom I can like or sympathize with, therefore I just, 
I 
> guess cannot care for them that much. I mean, we see Dursleys and 
> whom else? I guess we have Hermione's parents and those poor people 
> that DE terrorize, but they are so minor characters that I am not 
> sure that this is enough for me.

Magpie:
For me, I guess that's the reason. Because the Muggle world is my 
world, so I know there are people with whom to sympathize, and I wind 
up being sort of indignant that "we" are always being shown as such 
nothings whenever we're onscreen. Because we're not. I do also hate 
things like memory charms, but I think in this series it became so 
relentless I started arguing against the assumption that Muggles are 
idiots. Like, in the first book the Dursleys as individuals suck, and 
it seemed back then that JKR had some ideas towards magic being 
almost a metaphor for being an interesting person or "different." But 
then it clearly became just about blood with wizards sharing all of 
the Muggles' bad qualities only still seeing them as inferior. Also 
in the first book when Hagrid is saying, "Aren't they cute?" to 
Muggles it's obviously Hagrid being ignorant about Muggles, but over 
time it was more conflicted. Wizards didn't know about Muggles and 
were comically ignorant--but at the same time they did know enough 
about Muggles that they could manipulate them at will. Either Wizards 
can do everything so much better than Muggles of course or if they 
can't it's about how they just zap the Muggle into brainlessness so 
they're still more competent.

So I guess after a while it felt like the books just shared this 
condescending attitude towards Muggles that really seemed to mirror 
the Wizard's own contempt. Like it wasn't a metaphor, it was just 
agreeing that Muggles are foolish and unimportant--and Muggles were 
anybody who wasn't lucky enough to be in your group. They just got it 
coming and going. It's hard to put my finger on, but I guess 
eventually it just felt like the appeal was in the idea of people 
being born with magic being superior. 

I probably didn't say this well, but that's because like I said, it's 
hard to put my finger on. I think another story could make me fine 
with similar things, but there's something in the way it is here that 
makes me take the Muggle's pov. I wind up thinking how Muggles have 
science and science is awesome--Muggle pride! I guess, like I said, I 
don't think it's always consistent. Wizards always come out on top 
unless they're supposed to look good by being the victim of Muggles.

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 21:15:32 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:15:32 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2s36o+mj6q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2s3lk+bovv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183224

Magpie:
For me, I guess that's the reason. Because the Muggle world is my
world, so I know there are people with whom to sympathize, and I wind
up being sort of indignant that "we" are always being shown as such
nothings whenever we're onscreen. Because we're not.
<SNIP>

Alla:

But then I have follow up question, which I really should have 
mentioned in my initial post, hehe. Because I do understand the 
argument that you just wrote, but at the same time I find it 
confusing.

What makes you believe that this IS your world? What makes you 
believe that you are the same as muggles of potterverse? Because if I 
could understand it, I would have much easier time to understand 
underlying reasoning and this is really all I am looking for.

I mean, I said many times that I think that world is reflection of 
ours, but to fully accept this world as ours? I just do not see how, 
because wizards do not live near us, no? I mean, it sounds ridiculous 
when I write it like this, but at the same time I do not know how 
else to write it. There is no parallel world to ours, therefore I am 
just unable to see myself as muggle, you know?





From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 21:16:06 2008
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:16:06 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2976t+93rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2s3mm+klbd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183225

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> We've had a recent thread that mourns the passing of Snape. I 
don't, 
> but that led to this query. In the interest of full disclosure, I 
am 
> a Marauder fan and Sirius Black is my favorite character. So I am 
> naturally biased towards despising one Severus Snape. OK, now on to 
> the show. ;-)
> 
> JKR admitted Snape was "a gift of a character", and I'll second 
that. 
> Whatever your leanings I don't see how you could not be entertained 
> by the enigma that was Snape. JKR made sure we would all want to 
know 
> where exactly Severus stood and why he stood there, as much as we 
> wanted to know what was going to happen to Harry. For some of you, 
> maybe more.
> 
> In that respect, I too liked Severus Snape. I too wanted to know 
why 
> he was the way he was. I even color myself slightly disappointed 
that 
> his love for Lily was the *only* driving force that propelled him 
to 
> do what he did for Harry and the good side. I wanted to see 
something 
> more. Maybe some of you did see more, if so maybe you could cite 
some 
> canon for your belief? 


lizzyben:

Well, IMO we can see Snape growing from the selfish to the selfless 
forms of love. At first, he wanted Lily for himself. That's a 
selfish, posessive love. But when he meets DD, he's willing to 
sacrifice anything to keep her safe - even though she would likely 
never know, & even though there was no chance that Snape would have a 
relationship w/her. That's profoundly selfless, in its way. He's 
willing to give up his own life to save hers. But he still didn't 
give a thought to saving James & Harry until prodded by DD. Snape was 
willing to lay down his life someone he loves, but not for an enemy 
or even an innocent stranger. So this love is selfless, but still 
extremely limited & narrow. 

But over the course of the series, Snape vows to protect Harry, even 
though he doesn't even like the kid. Now he's risking himself not 
only to protect a loved one, but also for someone he doesn't like at 
all. He does so out of remorse, duty, and also perhaps something 
more.

Over the course of the series, he continues to save the lives of 
students through his healing, both those he likes (Draco), & those he 
dislikes (Hermione). Given a chance to kill an enemy (Sirius), he 
instead saves him from the Dementors. He gives up his career & 
reputation to save Draco from murder, Lucius from death & Narcissa 
from losing a son. And in DH, Snape chooses to risk his cover in 
order to save Lupin from death, & save Ginny and other students from 
torture by the Carrows. And in the end, he only watches die "those he 
could not save." This is valuing human life because it is life, and 
choosing to protect ALL, enemy & friend, alike. It's a desire to help 
humanity as a whole, not just those he is emotionally involved with. 
And this disinterested desire to save & heal humanity comes closest 
to what we would call "altruism".

So, I think we see the growth of Snape's love from "eros" to "agape" 
over the course of the series. At first, he's only concerned 
w/getting Lily. That's "eros", passion, romantic love & possesive 
love. Then he's willing to sacrifice for Lily, not out of a desire to 
have her, but a desire to protect & save her. That's "philia", real, 
unselfish love for a friend. And by the end, he's willing to 
sacrifice to protect Harry, and Draco, and Lupin, and Ginny, and 
Dumbledore, and Hermione, and Narcissa, and EVERY human being that he 
can save. That's "agape", seeking the welfare of humanity as a whole, 
unconditionally.

That's not to say that Snape isn't a horrible person, because he IS. 
But he also broadens his concern, step by step, from himself to his 
loved ones, to humanity. And with each choice, he moves foward from 
selfish love towards altruism & agape. In that sense, he undergoes a 
journey that no other character does in the Potterverse. And this 
true whether anyone else notices or not. :)

Mike:
 >No, what I want 
to 
> know is if you *liked* Severus? 

lizzyben: No. But I might love him. 


Mike:
> If you were in the Potterverse, would you be mates with him? If 
your 
> answer is yes, is it unqualified? That is, would you have been 
mates 
> when he was just pre-Hogwarts, during Hogwarts as a student, only 
> after he returned to Dumbledore to plea for Lily's life, or do you 
> have no qualifications?


lizzyben:

Uh, I'd be a little worried he might insult me, or pledge his life-
long devotion to me. With Snape, it's a toss-up. Or actually a 
sliding scale, from childhood desperation to adult nastiness. His 
earliest childhood memories are when he's the most desperate for 
affection - which would make him very clingy & needy. That emotional 
neediness continued through his teenage years, when he was so 
desperate to impress Lily. IMO, you can even see vestiges of that 
vulnerability in the DE Snape that came to DD & cringed at his 
disapproval. Later on, he's created a shell, & he pretty much used 
sarcasm & insults to protect himself from others. And that would make 
him unpleasant & nasty to be around. I wouldn't have minded being 
around little Snape or teenage Snape, but adult Snape could be hard 
to take.

Mike:
> 
> Is there any part of his behavior you disliked, abhorred, or just 
> thought was a little too over the top?


lizzyben:

Oh, sure, the treatment of Neville, for one. And the insulting of... 
well, pretty much everyone. 

Mike:
> You see, I'm curious. I could never understand the attraction. 


lizzyben:

Well, IMO JKR got it wrong when she said people like Snape because 
he's a "bad boy." That was never the reason I liked him as a 
character & that seems to be true of others as well. It's much more 
that I identify with him, and that makes me empathize with him quite 
a bit, while still not ever really "liking" his personality.


lizzyben







From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Jun 12 21:32:31 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:32:31 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2s3lk+bovv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2s4lf+fdt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183226

> Alla:
> 
> But then I have follow up question, which I really should have 
> mentioned in my initial post, hehe. Because I do understand the 
> argument that you just wrote, but at the same time I find it 
> confusing.
> 
> What makes you believe that this IS your world? What makes you 
> believe that you are the same as muggles of potterverse? Because if 
I 
> could understand it, I would have much easier time to understand 
> underlying reasoning and this is really all I am looking for.
> 
> I mean, I said many times that I think that world is reflection of 
> ours, but to fully accept this world as ours? I just do not see 
how, 
> because wizards do not live near us, no? I mean, it sounds 
ridiculous 
> when I write it like this, but at the same time I do not know how 
> else to write it. There is no parallel world to ours, therefore I 
am 
> just unable to see myself as muggle, you know?

Magpie:
I guess because it seems like it's obviously supposed to be...the 
world. I mean, isn't one of the appeals of the series that this is 
a....dammit, I can't remember the word. But it's a word that refers 
to a hidden, magical world within our own. If you're 10 when you read 
the book you can totally believe that you might get a Hogwarts letter 
because according to the book you can. The Dursley's world might not 
always get specific but there's not really much different from our 
world, so why wouldn't it refer to our world? The Dursleys are 
recognizable as regular humans, they often obviously satirize human 
attitudes. The first thing we hear about Vernon is that he's ordinary.

But it doesn't matter whether their world is literally my world. I 
was transported to this AU I would immediately be a Muggle. There's 
nothing to distinguish me from the Muggles in the books because I'm a 
person that can't do magic and that's the whole definition of what a 
Muggle is. How Wizards feel about Muggles are the way they'd feel 
about me. They'd treat me the same way they treat their Muggles.

-m




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 22:09:54 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:09:54 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2s4lf+fdt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2s6ri+64sp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183227

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" 
<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> > Alla:
> What makes you 
> > believe that you are the same as muggles of potterverse? SNIP


> Magpie:
> I guess because it seems like it's obviously supposed to be...the 
> world. SNIP 

> But it doesn't matter whether their world is literally my world. I 
> was transported to this AU I would immediately be a Muggle. There's 
> nothing to distinguish me from the Muggles in the books because I'm 
a 
> person that can't do magic and that's the whole definition of what 
a 
> Muggle is. How Wizards feel about Muggles are the way they'd feel 
> about me. They'd treat me the same way they treat their Muggles.

a_svirn:
Exactly my feeling. By the only definition of Muggles we were given 
in the books is that they are non-magical people. It is a definition 
that applies to me. And in the Potterverse people who are "just like 
me" are universally patronised often despised and routinely 
abused "for their own good". Well, it does make me uneasy. 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 00:02:26 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:02:26 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2s3lk+bovv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2sdei+58it@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183228

Magpie wrote:
> For me, I guess that's the reason. Because the Muggle world is my
world, so I know there are people with whom to sympathize, and I wind
up being sort of indignant that "we" are always being shown as such
nothings whenever we're onscreen. Because we're not.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> But then I have follow up question, which I really should have
mentioned in my initial post, hehe. Because I do understand the 
argument that you just wrote, but at the same time I find it confusing.
> 
> What makes you believe that this IS your world? What makes you 
believe that you are the same as muggles of potterverse? Because if I
could understand it, I would have much easier time to understand 
underlying reasoning and this is really all I am looking for.
> 
> I mean, I said many times that I think that world is reflection of 
ours, but to fully accept this world as ours? I just do not see how, 
because wizards do not live near us, no? I mean, it sounds ridiculous
when I write it like this, but at the same time I do not know how 
else to write it. There is no parallel world to ours, therefore I am
just unable to see myself as muggle, you know?

Carol responds:

I'm not altogether sure what you're saying, but it weems to me that
you're identifying with the wizards rather than the Muggles because
the Muggles are caricatured and the "real people," the ones most like
the reader, are the Wizards. It's no more possible for you to identify
with one of JKR's Muggles than with an adult in a Roald Dahl story. Is
that right, or am I misunderstanding you?

I'm not sure how to respond, because I definitely consider myself a
Muggle (a nonmagical person), and I think we're rather unfairly
depicted in the HP books, but that in itself doesn't bother me. I
understand perfectly why Salazar Slytherin, in an age when Muggles
persecuted (or attempted to persecute) Witches and Wizards would want
to conceal the school from Muggle eyes and would consider Muggle-borns
untrustworthy. I understand why Snape is upset when the flying car
violates the Statute of Secrecy. I feel sorry for little Petunia
getting a rejection letter from Dumbledore, but I can also understand
that DD had no choice in the matter. The separation of the Muggle and
Wizarding worlds is a given in the books, and that makes it inevitable
that the Pure-bloods and at least some of the Half-Bloods would have a
distorted idea of Muggles (though the idea that they don't know how
Muggles dress has always struck me as absurd).  

We're seeing from the Wizard pov (with the single exception of Frank
Bryce's pov in GoF). And, to them, being born without magic seems as
abnormal as being born without a nose. They regard Muggle technology
as a substitute for magic instead of appreciating it as an expression
of human intelligence. ("Ingenious, these Muggles!" is as close as we
get.)

Also, the particular Muggles we do see are either unpleasant (the
Dursleys, Tom Riddle Sr.) or helpless victims like the Robinson(?)
family in GoF (though Frank Bryce, another victim, does show spirit
before he's murdered, and he's no more helpless than Cedric Diggory in
similar circumstances). The Muggle Prime Minister is just another
politician, and it's interesting that Fudge, his Wizarding
counterpart, is just as helpless against Voldemort as he is, the
ability to turn teacups into gerbils notwithstanding.

All this is to say, I think(!), that we have no Muggle characters with
whom we can identify. Muggles are outsiders, not fully understood by
the hidden minority in their midst because the minority lives in its
own world, which it considers superior to the Muggle world. (It would
be more believable, BTW, if they didn't have Muggle wireless and
Wizard rock bands, which shows unmistakeable WW copying from Muggles
rather than the other way around.)

And yet, despite, the Wizarding pov (chiefly Harry's) and the
implication that Muggles are inferior because they don't have magic, I
still see myself as a Muggle and the Wizards as mistaken on this
point. Being magical is no more a determinant of human worth than
being musical or athletic (or being able to see or hear). The ability
to kill or torture using a wand doesn't make Wizarding criminals any
more dangerous than Muggle criminals, who can use guns or bombs for
the same purpose. Being able to deduct House points magically, however
convenient for Hogwarts teachers, does not make them better teachers
or more effective disciplinarians. And James Potter and Sirius Black
would probably have been just as obnoxious if their motorcycle
couldn't fly and they couldn't turn themselves into animals at will.

So, on the one hand, I identify with the Wizarding characters as I
read the books because its their world and their story, but I know
perfectly well that if it were real, I'd be one of those oblivious
citizens of Godric's Hollow who didn't know that the war memorial
could transform itself into a statue of the Potters and who would walk
right by the Leaky Cauldron without seeing it.

Muggles are caricatured either because the characters have known only
unpleasant Muggles (which helps to account for the anti-Muggle
prejudice) or because they're unknown and misunderstood. (Compare
nineteenth-century cartoons of African natives, for example.) And yet
we do see encouraging signs in the books: Bob Ogden standing up for
Muggles who can't defend themselves against magic, Charity Burbage
teaching her students that Muggles are human (too bad she was killed
for her teaching before we even got to know her), Kingsley Shacklebolt
talking about all human beings having equal worth.

In short, even though I'm bothered by the use of magic against Muggles
and by the idea that Muggles are inferior, I see both as inevitable in
the world that JKR has created. I'm not going to lose any sleep over a
pair of teenage boys plotting to rule the Muggles (or a second pair
behaving disrespectfully to Muggle policemen), but, as a Muggle
myself, I'm glad that it isn't real and I'm in no danger of being
Obliviated for glimpsing their world. And exciting as it would be to
be able to fly without a broom or turn invisible or magically clean my
house, I think that the Wizards' perceived superiority is just
that--perception. If they knew and understood the Muggles, and vice
versa, neither would consider themselves superior, with the exception
of fanatics and zealots.

Carpl, thinking that this may be her stupidest post ever and wondering
if she'll agree with a single word of it tomorrrow 

 





From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 00:10:54 2008
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:10:54 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2s6ri+64sp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2sdue+996q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183229

> a_svirn:
> Exactly my feeling. By the only definition of Muggles we were given 
> in the books is that they are non-magical people. It is a definition 
> that applies to me. And in the Potterverse people who are "just like 
> me" are universally patronised often despised and routinely 
> abused "for their own good". Well, it does make me uneasy.
>

lizzyben:

Even that one little story released today has a good dose of
Muggle-taunting. IMO people don't identify w/the Muggles of the books
because the narrative so clearly asks us NOT to identify w/them, but
w/the superior wizards instead. So we view Muggles from a patronizing
wizarding POV (aren't they sweet & stupid?) & don't make the
connection that these Muggles are, well, us. 

In the postcard story, the Muggle policeman is characterized as a fat
doltish oaf, in contrast to the cool, dashing, handsome James
& Sirius. Who would you rather identify with there? And then we are
invited to laugh as the fat Muggle can't get down the alley, and
breaks the mirror off the car door as he tries to squeeze through.
LOL. There's the humiliation & pain as humor theme again. It's sort of
funny to me that this one 800-word story also encapsulates so many of
the things that were disturbing in the original series. 


lizzyben




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 03:53:28 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:53:28 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2s6ri+64sp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2sqvo+a00c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183230

> a_svirn:
> Exactly my feeling. By the only definition of Muggles we were given 
> in the books is that they are non-magical people. It is a 
definition 
> that applies to me. And in the Potterverse people who are "just 
like 
> me" are universally patronised often despised and routinely 
> abused "for their own good". Well, it does make me uneasy.


Alla:

Yes, muggles are people who cannot do magic, but are they indeed just 
like you? When you think about Muggles are you not picturing specific 
characters that we met or are you picturing all those unfamiliar 
people whose only trait is the fact that they cannot do magic?

I am just trying to explain why it is so hard for me to identify, if 
that makes sense. I am not like Dursleys for example, I really am 
not, so I just do not see how the fact that they cannot do magic, 
just like I can't can envoke empathy from me. Just explaining how I 
feel, that's all.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 03:57:31 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:57:31 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2sqvo+a00c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2sr7b+tu6k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183231

Just adding something. Just as I cannot sympathize much with muggles 
because they cannot do magic, I really am not identifying with wizards 
because they CAN do magic, if that makes sense?

That is sort of extra trait, that makes no difference in how I view 
characters.

If Harry would have been a muggle who would be saving Muggle world, I 
would have loved his character just as much, if Dursleys would have 
been evil wizards, I would have hated them just as much if not more.


And now am off to bed.

Alla




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 05:48:42 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:48:42 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2s1pp+qbt9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2t1nq+2cce@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183232

Alla asked:
> Do you just think that what wizards do is wrong and even if we do not 
> have positive characters from muggle world, it is still wrong no 
> matter what? But then again, I get if you condemn wizards for it, but 
> where is the sympathy for muggles comes from?

Montavilla47:
I think it's a bit of combination of everything you mention.  It's
obviously wrong for wizards to do bad things to wizards--and
muggles aren't very different from wizards.  The only real difference
is that muggles aren't magical.

Now, in the first book or two, you can sort of think of magic as
being a metaphor for imagination and creativity.  So, you can lump
muggles into a group of "normal," conservative, socially-conscious,
A-types like Vernon, and identify with the creative, imaginative
witches and wizards.  

Remember those stories about kids who were shattered when they
turned 11 and their letters didn't show?  I think that was partially
because the underlying message of the early books was that muggles
were boring and blind, and what kids would want to identify with that?
No, kids are imaginative, think they are special, and WANT magic to 
exist.  The kid in all of us still does.

But, as the series progressed, the magic became less, well, magical,
and more like what technology does.  And, as we saw magic have 
negative, even permanent negative effects on wizards, it was easier
to see that magical could have permanent negative effects on muggles.

Also, I think the Prime Minister was a rather sympathetic character.
We were invited to laugh at his troubles with magic, but we were 
also seeing the world from his eyes.  There was nothing brutish,
stupid, or mean about him.  No reason not to sympathize--not
even a political one, since we don't even know what party he
belongs to.

Alla:
> The thought of living in the world where those who know how can 
> mentally rape you and be privy to your deepest secrets (HA, not like 
> we have much privacy in real world these days either) gives me chills 
> as well.
> 
> But all the characters I like live in WW and that what makes me 
> rooting for it.

Montavilla47:
I'm glad you like the characters.  Most of the characters I really
liked are dead at the end of the book.  But there are a few still living.
But I'm not sure I'd want to give up what technology gives us in
order to live in the world JKR depicted.

I prefer my i-tunes to having to choose between one rock group and
one pop singer.   I prefer light bulbs to candles.  I prefer central 
heating to cold, stone hallways.  

But I suppose it would be nice to Apparate.






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 09:45:36 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:45:36 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2sqvo+a00c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2tfk0+7chb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183233

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > a_svirn:
> > Exactly my feeling. By the only definition of Muggles we were 
given 
> > in the books is that they are non-magical people. It is a 
> definition 
> > that applies to me. And in the Potterverse people who are "just 
> like 
> > me" are universally patronised often despised and routinely 
> > abused "for their own good". Well, it does make me uneasy.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, muggles are people who cannot do magic, but are they indeed 
just 
> like you? When you think about Muggles are you not picturing 
specific 
> characters that we met or are you picturing all those unfamiliar 
> people whose only trait is the fact that they cannot do magic?
> 
> I am just trying to explain why it is so hard for me to identify, 
if 
> that makes sense. I am not like Dursleys for example, I really am 
> not, so I just do not see how the fact that they cannot do magic, 
> just like I can't can envoke empathy from me. 

a_svirn:
I one respect you are. Like the Dursleys you can't do magic. And that 
is what makes the Dursleys muggles. It seems to me that you somehow 
combine two different issues here. I do not identify with the 
Dursleys, who are so thoroughly unpleasant. I do, however identify 
with muggles who are non-magical. On the other hand, I do not 
identify with wizards who unlike me *can* do magic, but I can't help 
identifying with certain witches and wizards whose characters in some 
respects at least resemble mine. 
a_svirn





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 10:12:57 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:12:57 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2sdei+58it@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2th79+kb2f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183234

> Carol:
> Muggles are caricatured either because the characters have known 
only
> unpleasant Muggles (which helps to account for the anti-Muggle
> prejudice) 

a_svirn:
Actually it doesn't, which is the trouble. It is highly unlikely that 
the characters, even the much abused Harry knew only "bad" muggles. 
Nor Harry is the only character to have any contact with muggles. And 
yet all the muggles we do see in the books somehow seem to be less 
than satisfactory human being. Even the two specimens from that short 
800-word story. We are shown repeatedly, even persistently, that 
muggles are either mean, or stupid and always just plain inferior.  
Such persistence is conspicuous. It requires an explanation. And any 
explanation I can come up with makes me uneasy. 

> Carol:
or because they're unknown and misunderstood. (Compare
> nineteenth-century cartoons of African natives, for example.)

a_svirn:
Well, such cartoons were not exactly innocuous. They represented the 
views that led to certain polices of discrimination and persecution.  
a_svirn




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 10:37:17 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:37:17 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2sr7b+tu6k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2tikt+selv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183235

> Alla:
>
> Just adding something. Just as I cannot sympathize much with 
muggles 
> because they cannot do magic, I really am not identifying with 
wizards 
> because they CAN do magic, if that makes sense?

a_svirn:
Sure it does, but it seems to me that it is a completely different 
issue. You are basically saying that muggles are just too 
insignificant for the story to be bothered with. They are of course, 
but they are there nevertheless, the ever-present foil to the 
Wizarding world, and Rowling is *very* persistent in bringing them 
up. I mean, OK for the Dursleys, but why on earth do we need the 
entire chapter about the Muggle minister? Does it add anything 
significant to the plot? Nope. If Rowling wanted us to understand 
that the Muggle world is likewise affected by Voldemort she could 
have Kingsley to say something relevant at the Order meeting. And yet 
we are emphatically treated to a yet another show of muggle 
inferiority, and invited to chuckle at the spectacle of their 
humiliation. Moreover, we are told in the interview that it is a very 
important chapter, one she wanted to squeeze in the second book 
first, but saved for later. It looks like it is an imperative with 
Rowling to show muggles as inferiors and she goes to considerable 
lengths to achieve it. And much as I'd like not to bother about them, 
thanks to Rowling's persistence I can't help doing just that.  
a_svirn




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Jun 13 10:47:05 2008
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:47:05 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2s1pp+qbt9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2tj79+masu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183236

Alla:
> So I guess the question is what are the reasons for you to identify
> with muggles in Potterverse? See for me, I do not see anybody in
> muggle world whom I can like or sympathize with, therefore I just, I
> guess cannot care for them that much. I mean, we see Dursleys and
> whom else? 

Ceridwen:
As others have said, it's because I'm a Muggle.  I would naturally 
identify with my own group.  Not that I wouldn't like being a 
Potterverse-style witch, but I'm not.  The book presents the 
WW/Muggle divide less and less abstractly as the books wear on, 
otherwise, I might have continued to identify more with the 
characters we see the most.  The Dursleys are our only continuing 
intimate contact with Muggles.  They are not the only Muggles shown 
or mentioned in the books.

When unnamed Muggles drive cars, rent property for a weekend, ignore 
Petunia peering out her curtains at them, and so on, except for 
renting property (which I don't have), I might be those same 
Muggles.  When Dudley plays with his computer and his PlayStation or 
Gameboy or whichever it was he played with, my kids do the same thing.

When unnamed Muggles see a flying car and think it's unusual, I would 
think the same.  Should I have my memory altered by a covert bunch of 
MiBs for this?  It's the whole Government Conspiracy thing in robes.  
Should the government, WW or Muggle, have that sort of power over the 
powerless?  Maybe that's a part of it - Muggles are powerless, the 
true Underdogs of the Potterverse.  A lot of people feel sorry for, 
and even stand up for, the Underdogs.  Wizards always have the upper 
hand.  Even Harry, who is browbeaten and average, is worlds above the 
lowly Muggles.  Even Arthur, who is a Muggle Rights activist, is 
condescending toward the very people he tries to help.  It's 
insulting.  Muggles are non-magical people, people without power.  
Weak.  

As the series progressed, Muggles became less and less like cartoons 
and more and more like an underclass which was constantly being 
stepped on, and I have things in common with this class.  I can't 
fight someone stronger than me.  I can't compete with someone who has 
more native power than me.  A chilling image was the DEs violating 
Muggles at the QWC.  I couldn't fight them off, I couldn't hold my 
own enough to escape, I would have been up there, too.  Frank Bryce 
was just doing his job, and was killed for it.  I might be in the 
same position someday, and may have been in the past.  One of my 
worst memories is of working the overnight shift when some violence 
was being threatened over an upcoming court case.  Friends of mine 
from the group threatening the violence sat with me to ensure I 
wouldn't be harmed.  Yes, it was racial, and yes, these friends were 
not in on the threats.  Still, I would have been just like those 
helpless Muggles against wizards if it was me alone against an armed 
group.

I don't need a sympathetic character among Muggles to know I am one.  
I can see, by what makes the Dursleys Muggles, that I am one.  I 
don't identify with the Dursleys.  I do identify with their lack of 
magic.  After what I've seen of the Potterverse, I would not like to 
live there or be a part of it.  I wouldn't like it living side by 
side with me.  There are enough real-life victimizers among Muggles 
that I don't need the WW adding another layer.

Ceridwen.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 13 14:04:58 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:04:58 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2th79+kb2f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2tuqa+gam4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183237

> a_svirn:
> Actually it doesn't, which is the trouble. It is highly unlikely 
that 
> the characters, even the much abused Harry knew only "bad" muggles. 
> Nor Harry is the only character to have any contact with muggles. 
And 
> yet all the muggles we do see in the books somehow seem to be less 
> than satisfactory human being. Even the two specimens from that 
short 
> 800-word story. We are shown repeatedly, even persistently, that 
> muggles are either mean, or stupid and always just plain inferior.  
> Such persistence is conspicuous. It requires an explanation. And 
any 
> explanation I can come up with makes me uneasy. 

Magpie:
Exactly. Muggles are all over the place in the books and always 
inferior. They just can't handle any of the stuff magical people do, 
even the Prime Minister. The attitude toward Muggles isn't at all 
that they just don't matter in the story. It's always fun showing how 
superior Wizards are. Not superior in terms of character, but they 
are the in-group with all the power and Muggles just can't be treated 
as people on the same level. Even their Wizard children must become 
parents in the family. It permeates everything, even seemingly 
innocuous interactions and language.


> > Carol:
> or because they're unknown and misunderstood. (Compare
> > nineteenth-century cartoons of African natives, for example.)
> 
> a_svirn:
> Well, such cartoons were not exactly innocuous. They represented 
the 
> views that led to certain polices of discrimination and 
persecution.  
> a_svirn

Magpie:
This is what makes it so bizarre, imo, when the author then says the 
books are a plea for tolerance. They're full of exactly that kind of 
mindset--we even pretty much have the nineteenth-century African 
cartoons when we visit the giants. Judging people by the group they 
were born into is very valid in this universe. Even those from other 
groups who are counted as friends by the heroes do so because they 
agree with the inferiority of their race and adopt the values of 
Wizards.

If I were to not identify with the Dursleys as Muggles because we're 
not like them personality-wise I'd feel like I was just indulging in 
wishful thinking. Wizards obviously wouldn't make that distinction. 
Sure they might think I was one of the "good ones" but their contempt 
for what I was would be the same. The best treatment Muggles get is 
Wizards patting themselves on the back for being so tolerant as to 
believe we shouldn't be actively tormented and killed. (And that's 
very recognizable in bigoted attitudes in the real world too, imo.) 
The subtext of Wizard's "all people are of equal worth" is always 
very clearly "even the inferior people!" 

-m




From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Fri Jun 13 15:45:48 2008
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:45:48 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2tikt+selv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2u4nc+h7ja@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183238

 
> a_svirn:
> Sure it does, but it seems to me that it is a completely different 
> issue. You are basically saying that muggles are just too 
> insignificant for the story to be bothered with. They are of 
course, 
> but they are there nevertheless, the ever-present foil to the 
> Wizarding world, and Rowling is *very* persistent in bringing them 
> up. I mean, OK for the Dursleys, but why on earth do we need the 
> entire chapter about the Muggle minister? Does it add anything 
> significant to the plot? Nope. If Rowling wanted us to understand 
> that the Muggle world is likewise affected by Voldemort she could 
> have Kingsley to say something relevant at the Order meeting. And 
yet 
> we are emphatically treated to a yet another show of muggle 
> inferiority, and invited to chuckle at the spectacle of their 
> humiliation. Moreover, we are told in the interview that it is a 
very 
> important chapter, one she wanted to squeeze in the second book 
> first, but saved for later. It looks like it is an imperative with 
> Rowling to show muggles as inferiors and she goes to considerable 
> lengths to achieve it. And much as I'd like not to bother about 
them, 
> thanks to Rowling's persistence I can't help doing just that.  
> a_svirn


Hickengruendler:

But the Prime Minister is ridiculed by Fudge and Scrimgeour. They are 
not exactly role models. I mean, I do enjoy Fudge in this chapter and 
think some of his quotes here were pretty funny, but he's still 
Fudge. He was shown to be a rascist basically from his very first 
appereance onwards. So when I see him obviously acting superior to 
the Prime Minister, I don't identify with him, nor do I think his 
behaviour is supposed to be okay. I did sort of like the Prime 
Minister however, and thought he was in an awful situation, due to no 
fault of his own, and couldn't do anything about it. So if we were 
meant to see him as ridiculous, I don't think JKR suceeded. At least 
not for me.




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 15:50:07 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:50:07 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2tikt+selv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2u4vf+kdao@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183239

> > Alla:
> > Just adding something. Just as I cannot sympathize much with 
> muggles 
> > because they cannot do magic, I really am not identifying with 
> wizards 
> > because they CAN do magic, if that makes sense?
> 
> a_svirn:
> Sure it does, but it seems to me that it is a completely different 
> issue. You are basically saying that muggles are just too 
> insignificant for the story to be bothered with. They are of course, 
> but they are there nevertheless, the ever-present foil to the 
> Wizarding world, and Rowling is *very* persistent in bringing them 
> up. I mean, OK for the Dursleys, but why on earth do we need the 
> entire chapter about the Muggle minister? Does it add anything 
> significant to the plot? Nope. If Rowling wanted us to understand 
> that the Muggle world is likewise affected by Voldemort she could 
> have Kingsley to say something relevant at the Order meeting.

Montavilla47:
In fact, she does something very much like that in DH.  On the
radio show, Kingsley (or is it Jordan?) mentions specific wizards
who have been killed or captured, and then mentions some 
unnamed "family of Muggles" that was killed.  That the muggles
aren't even named (as opposed to Dirk Cresswell and Ted Tonks,
who made appearances in the story, does nothing to increase
any muggle-sympathy.  

And, as I recall, I wondered why that wizards even bothered
mentioning the dead muggles, if they didn't have names.  
Unless JKR was doing a version of that old Fireside Theater
Joke of the newspaper headline.  (IIRC, it read something
like "2 Iowans die in Earthquake! Thousands of Japanese 
also perish.")






From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 16:15:21 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:15:21 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2tuqa+gam4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2u6ep+gp13@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183240

> > > Carol:
> > or because they're unknown and misunderstood. (Compare
> > > nineteenth-century cartoons of African natives, for example.)
> > 
> > a_svirn:
> > Well, such cartoons were not exactly innocuous. They represented 
> the 
> > views that led to certain polices of discrimination and 
> persecution.  
> > a_svirn
> 
> Magpie:
> This is what makes it so bizarre, imo, when the author then says the 
> books are a plea for tolerance. They're full of exactly that kind of 
> mindset--we even pretty much have the nineteenth-century African 
> cartoons when we visit the giants. Judging people by the group they 
> were born into is very valid in this universe. Even those from other 
> groups who are counted as friends by the heroes do so because they 
> agree with the inferiority of their race and adopt the values of 
> Wizards.

Montavilla47:
This is where I start to wonder if JKR is playing some elaborate 
mind-game on us.  Because reading this benignly bigoted 
toward muggles (us) story produces in people who might
normally not personally feel the sting of prejudice that very 
same effect.

How much I loved the Dr. Doolittle books!  How I longed to 
be like the doctor and talk to animals!  How little I noticed the
antiquated "Africans are stupid savages, not even as smart as
animals" subtext.

Would an African child reading those stories identify with 
Tommy (It was Tommy, wasn't it?), or with Prince Bumpo,
the "good" African?  As a girl, I had no one to identify with
in the stories, except for the occasional animal, and the 
wife of the gardener, who sometimes got to make clothes.

In HP, we're invited to identify with the wizards.  But the 
fact remains that we aren't wizards, we are muggles, and 
by identifying with the magical people in the story, we are 
put into the position of siding against our own people--
as defined by the story itself.

Which is probably why some of us are feeling uneasy.  We're
put into the position of a Pole who hears a Polish joke and
has to decide whether to laugh along with the majority 
or take umbrage on behalf of his or her heritage.  






From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 16:34:50 2008
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:34:50 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2u6ep+gp13@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2u7ja+ckt7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183241


> 
> Montavilla47:
> This is where I start to wonder if JKR is playing some elaborate 
> mind-game on us.  Because reading this benignly bigoted 
> toward muggles (us) story produces in people who might
> normally not personally feel the sting of prejudice that very 
> same effect.
...
> In HP, we're invited to identify with the wizards.  But the 
> fact remains that we aren't wizards, we are muggles, and 
> by identifying with the magical people in the story, we are 
> put into the position of siding against our own people--
> as defined by the story itself.


lizzyben:

I wondered that as well sometimes, but IMO this story helps confirm 
that there's not any irony intended. In a 7-book series, maybe you 
could say that there's something deeper going on, but this is a 2-
page story squeezed onto a postcard. And yet JKR still found time to 
make fun of the Muggles. It puts a different spin on the series & IMO 
makes it harder to see it as some sort of subversive message about 
tolerance. Officer Anderson is Uncle Vernon in a uniform & he fits 
all the Muggle stereotypes laid out in the larger series. 


lizzyben




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 18:03:39 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:03:39 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2tfk0+7chb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2ucpr+n1mg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183242

a_svirn:
In one respect you are. Like the Dursleys you can't do magic. And that
is what makes the Dursleys muggles. It seems to me that you somehow
combine two different issues here. I do not identify with the
Dursleys, who are so thoroughly unpleasant. I do, however identify
with muggles who are non-magical. On the other hand, I do not
identify with wizards who unlike me *can* do magic, but I can't help
identifying with certain witches and wizards whose characters in some
respects at least resemble mine.

Alla:

Right, and just like Dursleys I have two legs, two hands and one 
head. Because this is how it looks to me, you know? The trait that I 
was born with, or not born with is not enough for me to like the 
character, or dislike the character in the book. You said that I am 
combining two different issues here and I guess I am, but that's 
because in my head I cannot really separate those issues and I do 
want to figure it out.

Let me try to rephrase and tell me if I understand correctly what you 
are saying. Basically for you the fact that characters (Muggles) 
cannot do magic is enough to identify with them, even if you do not 
see any pleasant Muggles in the book. I mean, again I know we had 
minor characters but I am excluding them because I know nothing about 
them one way or another. I do not think I even know how nice 
Hermione's parents are.

See I cannot feel that way when I am reading the book, any book. 
There is absolutely no way I can identify with the group of people 
whom I do not know much about, even if they look similar to us.

It reminds me of Slytherin house discussions I had over the years. I 
remember show people argued that just because the only Slytherin 
student we learn about in more details is Draco Malfoy it does not 
mean that there are no good kids in Slytherin somewhere, simply 
because it does not work that way in real life. And of course it does 
not work that way in real life, but I always thought that for me 
Slytherin IS Draco Malfoy, simply  he is the only student about whom 
JKR took care to talk more about. IMO of course.

And same thing is here. Just like Slytherin is Draco Malfoy for me, 
Muggles are Dursleys and I just do not see how I can think that I 
have anything in common with them because they can not do magic same 
way as I do not think I have anything in common with Draco Malfoy 
even if he can do magic.

Magpie:
<SNIP>
But it doesn't matter whether their world is literally my world. I
was transported to this AU I would immediately be a Muggle. There's
nothing to distinguish me from the Muggles in the books because I'm a
person that can't do magic and that's the whole definition of what a
Muggle is. How Wizards feel about Muggles are the way they'd feel
about me. They'd treat me the same way they treat their Muggles.

Alla:

Okay, I guess I can understand the reason if it comes down to being 
afraid treating the same way for the absence of that trait. You think 
you will be treated badly simply because you cannot do magic, right?





From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 12:13:23 2008
From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Happy Smiley)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2s3mm+klbd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <565958.81767.qm@web46213.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183243

"Did you LIKE Snape?" - Good question and sort of difficult to answer. :)
?
He is a puzzling person and I'd probably?attribute most of that to what he had lost in his life - he was just vexed, I think.
?
I do appreciate him *a lot* for the risk he had taken i.e. he ventured to be in constant touch with Voldemort acting as though he is that fellow's guy while being a spy for Dumbledore and this, he did, to save someone who he probably never liked till the moment he said "Look...at...me"........!!!
?
His never-changing dislike for Sirius does not surprise / bother me, to be honest, for there was not much of a change from Sirius' end either!
?
Yet I feel he could have been kind to Harry, Hermione and Neville - at least, he should not have tormented them thus.
?
I don't *like* him for sure (it's tough to do so :)) but I do respect him for the risks he took and the stoic sacrifices he made for those he didn't like / love.?

happyjoeysmiley














[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lealess at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 20:56:28 2008
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:56:28 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2ucpr+n1mg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2umts+fvsn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183244

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> See I cannot feel that way when I am reading the book, any book. 
> There is absolutely no way I can identify with the group of people 
> whom I do not know much about, even if they look similar to us.

Essentially, it sounds as though you are taking the HP world on its 
own terms.  If HP only shows only stupid or cruel Muggles, then they 
represent all HP Muggles for you and you don't have to feel anything 
for them aside from your normal response to stupid or cruel people.  
You don't try to fit the fiction of the books into larger real 
life.   I realize I may have misinterpreted, though.

Taking the books on their own terms, "If you want to know what a 
man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his 
equals."  If we agree that Muggles are inferior to Wizards because 
they do not possess magic or even the knowledge that magic exists, 
then all Wizards who come into contact with Muggles in the books come 
out very poorly (and I'm including Hermione and Ron in this).  The 
mistreatment of various "inferiors" forms the basis of my dislike for 
certain aspects of Rowling's Wizarding society.  In fact, both the 
assumption of superiority and rush to judgment about others' 
inferiority repel me, and always have, even before I began reading 
the series. 

So, I came to the books with that prejudice, and was discouraged to 
realize that, within the books, certain wizards are generally correct 
in abusing creatures unlike them.  Within the books, the weak are 
often at the mercy of the strong.  Off the top of my head, wizards 
are never called into account for abusing inferiors, with the notable 
exceptions of Sirius Black, who, of course, made the statement quoted 
above, the Gaunts, who were asserting their superiority over an 
equally-reprehensible Muggle, and Dumbledore's father, who was, of 
course, taking revenge against evil Muggles.  Generally, however, 
it's OK to accept, if not outright enjoy, seeing the less powerful 
compromised.  In fact, abusing the less powerful is a lark!  And so 
what if secrecy is compromised?  Look at the Quidditch World Cup.  
The Ministry and the Death Eaters had a jolly time, between the 
memory spells and the terror.  Magic is might.

In real-world terms, Rowling has explicitly brought our Western 
society's history into the books.  Thus, Wizarding prejudice is akin 
to Nazi beliefs and House-Elf slavery is an allusion to real-life 
slavery.  Being human and capable of abstract thought, I naturally 
extend this analogy.  In our real world, those who feel entitled can 
subject those with less power to condescension, insults, dangerous 
practical jokes, fraud or hoodwinking, episodes of terror, 
uncontrolled verbal or physical assault, physical injury, 
brainwashing, and torture, among other evils.  They can hide children 
away or raise them to feel superior.  All of these things are 
extrapolations of things Wizards did to Muggles in HP.  None of these 
things made Wizards appealing, no matter how unappealing their Muggle 
victims.

So... it isn't so much that I identify with the Muggles in the story, 
but more that I identify with the pre-judged and put-upon underdogs 
in any story.

> Magpie:
> <SNIP>
> But it doesn't matter whether their world is literally my world. I
> was transported to this AU I would immediately be a Muggle. There's
> nothing to distinguish me from the Muggles in the books because I'm
> a person that can't do magic and that's the whole definition of 
> what a Muggle is. How Wizards feel about Muggles are the way they'd
> feel about me. They'd treat me the same way they treat their
> Muggles.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Okay, I guess I can understand the reason if it comes down to being 
> afraid treating the same way for the absence of that trait. You 
> think you will be treated badly simply because you cannot do magic,
> right?

Answering for myself, when I was in the story, I was in the Wizard 
mindspace.  I identified with Wizards and my imagination soared with 
their powers and problems.  Then, being vicariously part of this 
society as I read, I began to see the contradictions in it.  Just 
because I was part of this world did not mean I checked my critical 
faculties at the acknowledgements page.  But I did bring my real 
world to the reading, and I did come back to the real world after 
reading.  It's inevitable that a mash-up occurred.

Called upon to stretch my imagine, I realize that if I were 
transported into this fictional universe for real, based on the 
actions of Wizards in the books, I am pretty sure I would be 
mistreated somehow, regardless of what kind of Muggle I am.  If I 
were magical (since I'm using my imagination), I don't think I'd be 
very pleased with other Wizards.

Hope this makes sense,

lealess




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 20:57:38 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:57:38 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2ucpr+n1mg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2un02+6fjb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183245

> a_svirn:
> In one respect you are. Like the Dursleys you can't do magic. And 
that
> is what makes the Dursleys muggles. It seems to me that you somehow
> combine two different issues here. I do not identify with the
> Dursleys, who are so thoroughly unpleasant. I do, however identify
> with muggles who are non-magical. On the other hand, I do not
> identify with wizards who unlike me *can* do magic, but I can't help
> identifying with certain witches and wizards whose characters in 
some
> respects at least resemble mine.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Right, and just like Dursleys I have two legs, two hands and one 
> head. Because this is how it looks to me, you know? 

a_svirn:
Exactly. And that is why you (I presume) identify with humans, rather 
than with elves, even if you do like Dobby. 

> Alla:
> Let me try to rephrase and tell me if I understand correctly what 
you 
> are saying. Basically for you the fact that characters (Muggles) 
> cannot do magic is enough to identify with them, even if you do not 
> see any pleasant Muggles in the book. I mean, again I know we had 
> minor characters but I am excluding them because I know nothing 
about 
> them one way or another. I do not think I even know how nice 
> Hermione's parents are.
> 
> See I cannot feel that way when I am reading the book, any book. 
> There is absolutely no way I can identify with the group of people 
> whom I do not know much about, even if they look similar to us.

a_svirn:
Then you ask a wrong question. If you ask me "Do you *like* the 
muggles from the HP books?" I'll say "'Course not. There is not a 
single muggle in the books who is even remotely likable". But when 
you ask "Why do you *identify* with muggles?" I can only say, because 
in the Potterverse I'd be one of them. So would you. 

> Alla:
> It reminds me of Slytherin house discussions I had over the years. 
I 
> remember show people argued that just because the only Slytherin 
> student we learn about in more details is Draco Malfoy it does not 
> mean that there are no good kids in Slytherin somewhere, simply 
> because it does not work that way in real life. And of course it 
does 
> not work that way in real life, but I always thought that for me 
> Slytherin IS Draco Malfoy, simply  he is the only student about 
whom 
> JKR took care to talk more about. IMO of course.
> 
> And same thing is here. Just like Slytherin is Draco Malfoy for me, 
> Muggles are Dursleys and I just do not see how I can think that I 
> have anything in common with them because they can not do magic 
same 
> way as I do not think I have anything in common with Draco Malfoy 
> even if he can do magic.

a_svirn:
I don't think it is the same thing. The discussion about Slytherin 
House is revolving round the question what it means to be a 
Slytherin. Whether their badness inherent and constitutional or 
merely superficial? Is it a house like any other with only several 
baddies congregated there merely by accident of fate, or it is a bad 
house, rotten to the core? There is certain ambivalence about the 
issue, even Rowling herself seems to be in two minds about that ? 
writes one thing in the book and then retracts it in the interview. 
However, there is nothing contradictory about being a muggle. A 
muggle is a non-magical person. You may not identify with them, but 
in the WW you would be identified as as such. And treated 
accordingly. 
a_svirn




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 21:14:12 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:14:12 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2u4nc+h7ja@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2unv4+ur3k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183246

> Hickengruendler:
> 
> But the Prime Minister is ridiculed by Fudge and Scrimgeour. They 
are 
> not exactly role models. I mean, I do enjoy Fudge in this chapter 
and 
> think some of his quotes here were pretty funny, but he's still 
> Fudge. He was shown to be a rascist basically from his very first 
> appereance onwards. So when I see him obviously acting superior to 
> the Prime Minister, I don't identify with him, nor do I think his 
> behaviour is supposed to be okay. I did sort of like the Prime 
> Minister however, and thought he was in an awful situation, due to 
no 
> fault of his own, and couldn't do anything about it. So if we were 
> meant to see him as ridiculous, I don't think JKR suceeded. At 
least 
> not for me.

a_svirn:
They are not exactly villains either. In fact, Scrimgeour was a hero, 
even though Harry and Co were too petty to acknowledge it. And his 
actions in the Minister's office ? a guest who insolently assumes the 
role of a host simply because he can ? are mirrored to a nicety by 
Dumbledore's actions at the Dursleys. So here we have the two most 
powerful men in the WW both of whom quite enjoy putting hapless 
muggles into their places and rub their inferiority in. I was 
disgusted with both scenes, but I don't think it was the effect 
Rowling was aiming for.   
a_svirn.





From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au  Sat Jun 14 00:09:30 2008
From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:09:30 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2t1nq+2cce@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2v27q+qhj0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183247

> Also, I think the Prime Minister was a rather sympathetic character.

I think we were given a "yes, Minister" TV-PM. Real PM's are shrewd
and tough manipulators. They would, as I've said before, find ways to
bring in modern technology to find out who these appearing creatures
were. In the WW, wands are used much like guns but they seem to have
very little range. In a real shootout between the 6 billion muggles
and the few wizards, muggles rule.

Barry




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun 14 00:27:40 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:27:40 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2ucpr+n1mg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2v39s+7jar@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183248

> Magpie:
> <SNIP>
> But it doesn't matter whether their world is literally my world. I
> was transported to this AU I would immediately be a Muggle. There's
> nothing to distinguish me from the Muggles in the books because I'm a
> person that can't do magic and that's the whole definition of what a
> Muggle is. How Wizards feel about Muggles are the way they'd feel
> about me. They'd treat me the same way they treat their Muggles.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Okay, I guess I can understand the reason if it comes down to being 
> afraid treating the same way for the absence of that trait. You think 
> you will be treated badly simply because you cannot do magic, right?


Magpie:
I know I would be treated badly simply because I cannot do magic. 
That's explicit in the books. At best I'd be thought of condescendingly 
and people would disapprove if someone tormented me too much when they 
didn't think I'd deserved it, but that's about it. Even Muggles who as 
far as we know are perfectly nice people get treated badly, and they're 
spoken of dismissively as a group. Even if it's Muggles you'd think 
they'd respect and like they can't respect them as much as Wizards.

I remembered the word I was looking for btw--it's "Wainscot fantasy." A 
fantasy that takes place in our primary reality but suggests there's a 
secret, hidden society within it.

> Hickengruendler:
>
> But the Prime Minister is ridiculed by Fudge and Scrimgeour. They
are
> not exactly role models. I mean, I do enjoy Fudge in this chapter
and
> think some of his quotes here were pretty funny, but he's still
> Fudge. He was shown to be a rascist basically from his very first
> appereance onwards. So when I see him obviously acting superior to
> the Prime Minister, I don't identify with him, nor do I think his
> behaviour is supposed to be okay. I did sort of like the Prime
> Minister however, and thought he was in an awful situation, due to
no
> fault of his own, and couldn't do anything about it. So if we were
> meant to see him as ridiculous, I don't think JKR suceeded. At
least
> not for me.

a_svirn:
They are not exactly villains either. In fact, Scrimgeour was a hero,
even though Harry and Co were too petty to acknowledge it. And his
actions in the Minister's office ? a guest who insolently assumes the
role of a host simply because he can ? are mirrored to a nicety by
Dumbledore's actions at the Dursleys.

Magpie:
I don't think Fudge or Scrimgeour are being particularly bullying in 
that scene anyway. A lot of it is them just trying to talk to the guy 
while the Muggle looks overwhelmed and slack-jawed. Even the 
name "Sirius" is too confusing for him to comprehend. Of course, before 
the other two Ministers show up the Muggle Minister is already 
characterized as pretty much like them, having clawed his way into 
office etc. I don't see how he could fail to come across as pathetic 
and ridiculous. Not that we can't feel sympathetic for him, what with 
stuff going on he can't handle, but he does spend most of the scene 
saying, "Whuh?"

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 14 01:29:47 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:29:47 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2v39s+7jar@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2v6ub+1vhs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183249

Magpie:
I know I would be treated badly simply because I cannot do magic.
That's explicit in the books. At best I'd be thought of 
condescendingly
and people would disapprove if someone tormented me too much when they
didn't think I'd deserved it, but that's about it.

Alla:

See, I do not believe that it is explicit in the books. I mean, sure 
condescention towards muggles as a group IMO is explicit, but hurting 
muggles, tormenting them **just because they cannot do magic**, I do 
not think so.

Because whatever example of what I think constitutes rude treatment 
of muggles ( I am not talking about DE, only about what good guys do) 
I only remember being done to bad people, who just **happen to be 
muggles**. It is of course valid interpretation that muggles are 
mistreated because they are muggles only, but I do not think that it 
is true for good guys.

Therefore no, I do not think I will be treated badly simply because I 
cannot do magic. I may get Arthur's attitude, sure, which I may want 
to slap him and explain a few things, but beyond that? Unless I 
decide to raise and actively mistreat a wizard child I do not think 
that wizards will want to hurt me. My opinion of course.

And actually I think that maybe some improvements in the 
condescention area are to follow. After all Ron passes a driving 
test, so maybe they will learn some muggle ways and figure that 
muggles are not as stupid as wizards think.

Magpie:
 Even Muggles who as
far as we know are perfectly nice people get treated badly, and 
they're
spoken of dismissively as a group. Even if it's Muggles you'd think
they'd respect and like they can't respect them as much as Wizards.



Alla:

Who are those perfectly nice people who get treated badly? Again I am 
not talking about DE mistreating muggles, I want to know which 
perfectly nice people are being tormented by good guys? And again, I 
happily concede that good guys are condescending and patronizing 
towards muggles as a group, I just think that this is not enough in 
my book to condemn them for it. This is something I hope that they 
will learn to not do eventually.


Magpie:
I remembered the word I was looking for btw--it's "Wainscot fantasy." 
A
fantasy that takes place in our primary reality but suggests there's a
secret, hidden society within it.

<SNIP>


Alla:

Very interesting. I never heard it before. Thanks.





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun 14 02:05:32 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:05:32 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2v6ub+1vhs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2v91c+ndtr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183250

> Magpie:
> I know I would be treated badly simply because I cannot do magic.
> That's explicit in the books. At best I'd be thought of 
> condescendingly
> and people would disapprove if someone tormented me too much when 
they
> didn't think I'd deserved it, but that's about it.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> See, I do not believe that it is explicit in the books. I mean, 
sure 
> condescention towards muggles as a group IMO is explicit, but 
hurting 
> muggles, tormenting them **just because they cannot do magic**, I 
do 
> not think so.

Magpie:
But I didn't say that I'd necessarily run into people who would 
torment me to the level of DEs. I said that I'd be treated badly 
because of what I was--I consider condescension to be treating badly. 
It doesn't have to be me being hurt physically or seriously zapped 
with magic. Although no Wizards have a problem with zapping them with 
magic that we see, if it's convenient for them.

Alla:
 It is of course valid interpretation that muggles are 
> mistreated because they are muggles only, but I do not think that 
it 
> is true for good guys.

Magpie:
As I said, I don't think it has to be being tormented. Also, if 
you're going to assume that as long as the Muggle's done anything to 
bring displeasure to or inconvenience a Wizard, that's a pretty big 
blank check for them to do whatever they want. Which is exactly their 
attitude. A good Wizard is somebody who doesn't seek out faceless 
Muggles to torment. They can be condescending, manipulate them, have 
no respect for them, make decisions for them and generally treat them 
as inferior. Sure they might have some actual reason for teasing and 
tormenting them if they're good guys--the person might have given 
them cheek or been a bad guy or just annoyed them in some way. But 
the reason they can respond the way they do, by completely 
humiliating the person and making them completely powerless--*is* 
because they're Muggles.

Alla:
> cannot do magic. I may get Arthur's attitude, sure, which I may 
want 
> to slap him and explain a few things, but beyond that? Unless I 
> decide to raise and actively mistreat a wizard child I do not think 
> that wizards will want to hurt me. My opinion of course.

Magpie:
I wouldn't be satisfied with that attitude, that as long as I behaved 
as a good little Muggle and never did anything to deserve punishment 
from a Wizard (and it would be the Wizard decided when I deserved it) 
I'd be happy. First, because I wouldn't just assume I deserved 
whatever abuse I got. And second because I could be the best Muggle 
in the world and still wouldn't be treated with respect. All I would 
have to do is get in the way. My own child might be the one doing it. 

In real life the groups in power have often claimed that people not 
in power are just fine as long as they're good, but because they have 
no power it doesn't usually work out that way.

Alla:> 
> And actually I think that maybe some improvements in the 
> condescention area are to follow. After all Ron passes a driving 
> test, so maybe they will learn some muggle ways and figure that 
> muggles are not as stupid as wizards think.

Magpie:
Well, Ron (a good guy) doesn't "pass" so much as Confund the driving 
instructor. Because Muggles actually are just that stupid--once you 
Confund them! I wouldn't expect any better treatment.


> Magpie:
>  Even Muggles who as
> far as we know are perfectly nice people get treated badly, and 
> they're
> spoken of dismissively as a group. Even if it's Muggles you'd think
> they'd respect and like they can't respect them as much as Wizards.
> 
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Who are those perfectly nice people who get treated badly? Again I 
am 
> not talking about DE mistreating muggles, I want to know which 
> perfectly nice people are being tormented by good guys? And again, 
I 
> happily concede that good guys are condescending and patronizing 
> towards muggles as a group, I just think that this is not enough in 
> my book to condemn them for it. This is something I hope that they 
> will learn to not do eventually.

Magpie:
The people at the QWC who get memory charmed, some to the point of 
total confusion, the Grangers and the parents of every other 
Muggleborn who aren't treated with the same respect as Wizard 
parents, the many random people who are just sources of amusements 
for Wizards, every Muggle who's treated as an idiot, the Muggles who 
are randomly hexed to make them more docile to whatever the Wizard 
wants. 

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 14 02:27:04 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:27:04 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2v91c+ndtr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2va9o+j1rs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183251

Magpie:
But I didn't say that I'd necessarily run into people who would
torment me to the level of DEs. I said that I'd be treated badly
because of what I was--I consider condescension to be treating badly.
It doesn't have to be me being hurt physically or seriously zapped
with magic. Although no Wizards have a problem with zapping them with
magic that we see, if it's convenient for them.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Oh, ok. Sorry. If we are just talking about condescension I agree 
with you.

Magpie:
As I said, I don't think it has to be being tormented. Also, if
you're going to assume that as long as the Muggle's done anything to
bring displeasure to or inconvenience a Wizard, that's a pretty big
blank check for them to do whatever they want.

Alla:

No I am going to assume that as long as one person did something to  
hurt another person muggle or wizard, to certain extent it is okay to 
give the person back  same attitude ( I do not  particularly know the 
extent to which it is ok, but for example I certainly think that what 
had been done to Dursleys by Dumbledore is perfectly okay and 
appropriate)


Magpie:
<SNIP>
A good Wizard is somebody who doesn't seek out faceless
Muggles to torment. They can be condescending, manipulate them, have
no respect for them, make decisions for them and generally treat them
as inferior.
<SNIP>

Alla:

No, I disagree with some of it. I do not remember Arthur making 
decisions for muggles or manipulating them. I would say that  good 
wizard can be condescending to muggles, but that is pretty much it in 
my opinion. Now when those muggles are horrible people as well, then 
it is a a different story IMO.


Magpie:
I wouldn't be satisfied with that attitude, that as long as I behaved
as a good little Muggle and never did anything to deserve punishment
from a Wizard (and it would be the Wizard decided when I deserved it)
I'd be happy. First, because I wouldn't just assume I deserved
whatever abuse I got. And second because I could be the best Muggle
in the world and still wouldn't be treated with respect.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Well, I am not necessarily talking about being all that happy. I am 
just disputing of how badly one will be treated if one cannot do 
magic. But I also wonder why you will not be satisfied that as long 
as you do not hurt another person, nobody will touch you? I certainly 
would think that it is should be that way between wizards and muggles 
and wizards etc.

Again, I am all for getting rid of patronizing attitudes, I just do 
not buy that good guys have something more than that to improve.

Magpie:
The people at the QWC who get memory charmed, some to the point of
total confusion, the Grangers and the parents of every other
Muggleborn who aren't treated with the same respect as Wizard
parents, the many random people who are just sources of amusements
for Wizards, every Muggle who's treated as an idiot, the Muggles who
are randomly hexed to make them more docile to whatever the Wizard
wants.

Alla:

Right, well memory charms to random muggles, normally I would agree, 
just hard to do so here. When Grangers are not treated with respect? 
Are you talking about Hermione?





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun 14 04:01:26 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:01:26 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2va9o+j1rs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2vfqm+sfc5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183252

 Magpie:
> <SNIP>
> A good Wizard is somebody who doesn't seek out faceless
> Muggles to torment. They can be condescending, manipulate them, have
> no respect for them, make decisions for them and generally treat 
them
> as inferior.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> No, I disagree with some of it. I do not remember Arthur making 
> decisions for muggles or manipulating them. I would say that  good 
> wizard can be condescending to muggles, but that is pretty much it 
in 
> my opinion. Now when those muggles are horrible people as well, 
then 
> it is a a different story IMO.

Magpie:
I don't have to come up with examples of every single character doing 
these things to point out they're done casually as part of the world-
building. Arthur is fine with memory charms, even when they have some 
bad side effects or have to be done ten times a day to keep the 
Muggle "happy." He enters the Dursley house as the master because 
he's the Wizard. Ron informs us even the ordinary request for Harry 
to come to the QWC is just for show and they're coming whether the 
Muggles want them or not--and they'll be hooking up the fireplace to 
the floo without telling them too, another thing they wouldn't do 
with Wizards. (And yes the Dursleys are awful but so are the Malfoys. 
The difference is that Arthur is paternalistic in his dealings with 
the former and not the latter. )

> Magpie:
> I wouldn't be satisfied with that attitude, that as long as I 
behaved
> as a good little Muggle and never did anything to deserve punishment
> from a Wizard (and it would be the Wizard decided when I deserved 
it)
> I'd be happy. First, because I wouldn't just assume I deserved
> whatever abuse I got. And second because I could be the best Muggle
> in the world and still wouldn't be treated with respect.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, I am not necessarily talking about being all that happy. I am 
> just disputing of how badly one will be treated if one cannot do 
> magic. But I also wonder why you will not be satisfied that as long 
> as you do not hurt another person, nobody will touch you? I 
certainly 
> would think that it is should be that way between wizards and 
muggles 
> and wizards etc.

Magpie:
Because it's not just "don't hurt us and we won't hurt you." It's 
Muggles being inferior beings--I wouldn't be happy accepting that I 
was the inferior being and the second class citizen. Also these are 
people who almost never reflect on their own behavior and always 
consider themselves justified and they're the ones who get to decide 
what's fair treatment for me. (And if they step over the line, well, 
I'm sure they'll do better next time.)

Alla: 
> Again, I am all for getting rid of patronizing attitudes, I just do 
> not buy that good guys have something more than that to improve.

Magpie:
Patronizing attitudes that they need to improve makes it sound like a 
superficial thing, like they need to improve their table manners. 
They have the attitudes because they think Muggles are inferior 
beings and that comes out in all different ways in the way they treat 
them. I thought this type of thing was supposed to be central to the 
definition of evil in the books. Why does it matter all those times 
when people get mad about people judging people based on what they're 
born as?

 
> Magpie:
> The people at the QWC who get memory charmed, some to the point of
> total confusion, the Grangers and the parents of every other
> Muggleborn who aren't treated with the same respect as Wizard
> parents, the many random people who are just sources of amusements
> for Wizards, every Muggle who's treated as an idiot, the Muggles who
> are randomly hexed to make them more docile to whatever the Wizard
> wants.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Right, well memory charms to random muggles, normally I would 
agree, 
> just hard to do so here. When Grangers are not treated with 
respect? 
> Are you talking about Hermione?

Magpie:
Almost every single interaction between Hermione and her parents 
shows them not being respected as parents the way Wizards are. 
Hermione doesn't just lie to them to do what she wants like Ron (or a 
regular teenager) might lie to his parents when he wants to do 
something he knows they won't let him do or will punish him for. She 
assumes the highest authority in the family because she's the witch. 
She makes decisions about them rather than vice versa. She lies 
because it's easier than telling the truth because they're Muggles. 
And I know there's a justification for everything she does but take a 
step back and that's their whole relationship.

-m





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 14 04:16:59 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:16:59 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2vfqm+sfc5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2vgnr+hrmj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183253

Magpie:
Because it's not just "don't hurt us and we won't hurt you." It's
Muggles being inferior beings--I wouldn't be happy accepting that I
was the inferior being and the second class citizen. Also these are
people who almost never reflect on their own behavior and always
consider themselves justified and they're the ones who get to decide
what's fair treatment for me. (And if they step over the line, well,
I'm sure they'll do better next time.)

Alla:

I get the impression that good guys in the books want not as much as 
treat muggles as second class citizens, but just to keep their 
affairs a secret from muggles as much as it is possible and that is 
why probably charms that I usually would hate do not bother me, since 
to me they are nothing more than metaphor for please leave us alone.

But I am still confused. You do not want wizards to decide what's 
fair treatment for you, ok. But are you saying that **just because 
you are a muggle** you should be left alone even if you hurt a 
wizard. Sounds like an unfairness to the other side to me. Or are you 
saying something different?

I mean, wizards are not immune from say dying from the bullet, right? 
Say muggle kills a wizard. Are you suggesting that wizards should 
have no right to persecute him,  because he cannot do magic?

See, I do not think it should have any influence whatsoever. I think 
muggles should have a right to persecute a wizard who breaks muggle 
law and vice versa. If  murderer who cannot do magic may be hurt by 
it, I won't cry much.



Magpie:
Almost every single interaction between Hermione and her parents
shows them not being respected as parents the way Wizards are.
Hermione doesn't just lie to them to do what she wants like Ron (or a
regular teenager) might lie to his parents when he wants to do
something he knows they won't let him do or will punish him for. She
assumes the highest authority in the family because she's the witch.
She makes decisions about them rather than vice versa. She lies
because it's easier than telling the truth because they're Muggles.
And I know there's a justification for everything she does but take a
step back and that's their whole relationship.


Alla:

What is the canon for the argument that Hermione lies to her parents 
not like any other wizarding teenager or any teenager would lie to 
get out of trouble or to hide their problems?

I am not even talking about justifications for what Hermione does. 
How exactly are they being treated differently? Are we talking of 
sending them to Australia? Because so far I cannot come up with 
anything else.

Yes, I confess I find what Hermione did in DH to be very touching.





From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sat Jun 14 04:56:22 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:56:22 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2vgnr+hrmj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2vj1m+42gl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183254

> Alla:
> What is the canon for the argument that Hermione lies to her parents 
> not like any other wizarding teenager or any teenager would lie to 
> get out of trouble or to hide their problems?

Kemper now:
I don't have the canon, but doesn't she say/imply that she hasn't told
her parents anything with regards to Cedric and Voldemort returning to
power?  This is information that she consciously does not discuss with
them.  It is a lie of omission.  


> Alla:
> I am not even talking about justifications for what Hermione does. 
> How exactly are they being treated differently? Are we talking of 
> sending them to Australia? Because so far I cannot come up with 
> anything else.
> 
> Yes, I confess I find what Hermione did in DH to be very touching.

Kemper now:
I'm okay with the memory charm on the parents if the parents were in
choice of that decision.  

If my magical child ever did that to me without it being my choice, he
better leave me that... because I will smite him.

Kemper




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 14 12:43:16 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:43:16 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2va9o+j1rs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g30ed4+jnke@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183255

> Alla:
> 
> No, I disagree with some of it. I do not remember Arthur making 
> decisions for muggles or manipulating them. 

a_svirn:
He obliviated them though, simply because they look askance at him at 
the QWC. (Which was his fault incidentally.) He was also extremely 
high-handed with the Dursleys. Do you believe that he would presume 
to connect any wizarding fireplace to the network without asking them 
first? Nope, I believe the correct procedure would be to ask their 
permission to do so. After all it is their privacy is being invaded. 

> Alla:
I would say that  good 
> wizard can be condescending to muggles, but that is pretty much it 
in 
> my opinion. 

a_svirn:
It is bad enough. I don't know about you, but I hate being condensed 
to. 

> Alla:
> But I also wonder why you will not be satisfied that as long 
> as you do not hurt another person, nobody will touch you? I 
certainly 
> would think that it is should be that way between wizards and 
muggles 
> and wizards etc.

a_svirn:
Define touch. I'd say constant mind-raping and manipulation is even 
worse than physical injury. 

> Alla:
> 
> Right, well memory charms to random muggles, normally I would 
agree, 
> just hard to do so here. 

a_svirn:
It is, isn't it? And this is just a matter of routine with good 
wizards.






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 14 12:52:51 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:52:51 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2vgnr+hrmj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g30ev3+6j7r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183256

> Magpie:
> Because it's not just "don't hurt us and we won't hurt you." It's
> Muggles being inferior beings--I wouldn't be happy accepting that I
> was the inferior being and the second class citizen. Also these are
> people who almost never reflect on their own behavior and always
> consider themselves justified and they're the ones who get to decide
> what's fair treatment for me. (And if they step over the line, well,
> I'm sure they'll do better next time.)
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I get the impression that good guys in the books want not as much 
as 
> treat muggles as second class citizens, but just to keep their 
> affairs a secret from muggles as much as it is possible and that is 
> why probably charms that I usually would hate do not bother me, 
since 
> to me they are nothing more than metaphor for please leave us alone.


a_svirn:
Well, Lockhart didn't want to treat Harry and Ron as second class 
citizens either. He merely wanted to get out of extremely dangerous 
situation. But we are invited to regard his actions as reprehensible, 
because to meddle with other people minds for one's own convenience 
is naturally reprehensible. How can it be otherwise? It can, when the 
others in question are muggles. 


> Alla: 
> I am not even talking about justifications for what Hermione does. 
> How exactly are they being treated differently? Are we talking of 
> sending them to Australia? Because so far I cannot come up with 
> anything else.

a_svirn:
I am not magpie, but I am pretty sure that we are. This business with 
Hermione's parents was probably the most unpleasant shock I got from 
DH. 

> Alla: 
> Yes, I confess I find what Hermione did in DH to be very touching.

a_svirn:
I was disgusted. 




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 14 14:25:09 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:25:09 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2u7ja+ckt7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g30kc5+gg1q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183257

> > Montavilla47:
> > This is where I start to wonder if JKR is playing some elaborate 
> > mind-game on us.  Because reading this benignly bigoted 
> > toward muggles (us) story produces in people who might
> > normally not personally feel the sting of prejudice that very 
> > same effect.

> lizzyben:
> I wondered that as well sometimes, but IMO this story helps confirm 
> that there's not any irony intended. In a 7-book series, maybe you 
> could say that there's something deeper going on, but this is a 2-
> page story squeezed onto a postcard. And yet JKR still found time 
to 
> make fun of the Muggles. 

Zara:
I don't see that the new story proves anything one way or the other 
regarding Montavilla's proposal. For whatever reason, the series 
includes this near-universal prejudice against Muggles among 
Pureblood (and other wizard-raised) wizards. James and Sirius are two 
characters from that background. So Rowling has the choice of making 
them either 1) uniquely sensitive and thoughtful regarding this 
prejudice or 2) just like the rest. Frankly, I don't think 1) fits 
their characters as revealed in the books. And 2) combined with 
being "the height of cool" makes the interaction with the Muggle cops 
depicted in the notecard story write itself.

Personally, when I heard the story included a motorcycle, James, 
Sirius, and a policeman...I already knew it was going to contain some 
such scene of the Dynamic Duo running afoul of Muggle law 
enforcement, with hilarity ensuing.







From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun 14 15:28:55 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:28:55 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2vgnr+hrmj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g30o3n+je3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183258

> Alla:
> 
> I get the impression that good guys in the books want not as much 
as 
> treat muggles as second class citizens, but just to keep their 
> affairs a secret from muggles as much as it is possible and that is 
> why probably charms that I usually would hate do not bother me, 
since 
> to me they are nothing more than metaphor for please leave us alone.

Magpie:
Yes, they do want to keep it secret but it's obviously also led to 
Muggles being okay to interfere with in general. Memory charms when 
performed on Wizards are treated very differently--often as crimes by 
bad guys.

Alla: 
> But I am still confused. You do not want wizards to decide what's 
> fair treatment for you, ok. But are you saying that **just because 
> you are a muggle** you should be left alone even if you hurt a 
> wizard. Sounds like an unfairness to the other side to me. Or are 
you 
> saying something different?

Magpie;
I never said anything about wanting to be able to hurt Wizards. I 
think the ideal way of Muggles to be treated like Wizards is the same 
way non-disabled people should treat the disabled. See them as of 
exactly the same worth, and being sensitive to their physical 
limitation. By sensitive I don't mean pretending it doesn't exist, 
but being responsibile about your own physical advantages. Iow, be 
very careful about picking on people who have a physical disadvantage 
that you don't. The type of thing Wizards pay lip service to but 
don't do. They can respond appropriately to Muggles hurting them 
without crossing that line.

Alla:
> 
> I mean, wizards are not immune from say dying from the bullet, 
right? 
> Say muggle kills a wizard. Are you suggesting that wizards should 
> have no right to persecute him,  because he cannot do magic?

Magpie:
Of course not. Muggles should get fair trials. Which would mean 
Muggles and Wizards taking part in the trial. It's not like what 
those boys did to Ariana was legal under Muggle law. They would have 
gotten exactly the same treatment as if they'd assaulted a Muggle 
girl.

> Alla:
> 
> What is the canon for the argument that Hermione lies to her 
parents 
> not like any other wizarding teenager or any teenager would lie to 
> get out of trouble or to hide their problems?
> 
> I am not even talking about justifications for what Hermione does. 
> How exactly are they being treated differently? Are we talking of 
> sending them to Australia? Because so far I cannot come up with 
> anything else.

Magpie:
She doesn't tell them what's going on at school--and neither does 
Dean tell his parents. She bails on a ski vacation at the last minute 
to stay with the Weasleys, lying to them that she's just decided to 
stay at school at the last minute and study like all the kids who 
care are going to do. She singles out telling them she's made Prefect 
because "that's something they'll understand." She doesn't tell them 
anything about what's going on 7th year (or most of the time, it 
seems) and brainwashes them into thinking they're other people so 
they'll move to Australia. Even her teeth fit the pattern when 
Hermione fixes them herself over their objections. Again, that's not 
something I really fault her for, but she's not rebelling against 
their authority, she doesn't recognize them as having any authority. 

This isn't a normal daughter/parents relationship. The plot reasons 
for this are obvious, but it works easily because it completely goes 
along with Wizard attitude towards Muggles in general. We didn't even 
need the final indignation of the Grangers being sent to Australia 
the way Muggles in the past have been randomly sent on long journeys 
to get them out of the way.

It would be touching if we were talking about Hermione's pet dogs 
that she selflessly robbed of all memory of her and sent to live on a 
farm where they'd be happier--since anyway it's not like they could 
understand anyway. Her treating two grown, intelligent human beings 
the same way is, imo, chilling. Even more so since the book always 
takes the attitude that it's Hermione who's the victim here because 
she "has to" lie and manipulate them because they're Muggles.

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 14 17:19:00 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:19:00 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g30uc7+ph94@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g30ui4+q4g9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183260

> Kemper now:
> I don't have the canon, but doesn't she say/imply that she hasn't
told
> her parents anything with regards to Cedric and Voldemort returning
to
> power? This is information that she consciously does not discuss
with
> them. It is a lie of omission.


Alla:

I do not have the canon for that either, so I cannot confirm or
deny :). But if she does do that, I am not sure how it is different
from any magical child hiding stuff from their parents, even if some 
of the stuff that Hermione hides is easier to hide for her. Remember 
I am not disputing that Hermione lies. I am disputing that she treats 
her parents significantly differently than other kids do.


> Kemper now:
> I'm okay with the memory charm on the parents if the parents were in
> choice of that decision.
>
> If my magical child ever did that to me without it being my choice,
he
> better leave me that... because I will smite him.

Alla:

Quite honestly when I first read the interpretation that Hermione did
it without her parents agreeing to it, my first reaction was HUH.

Magpie:
Of course not. Muggles should get fair trials. Which would mean
Muggles and Wizards taking part in the trial. It's not like what
those boys did to Ariana was legal under Muggle law. They would have
gotten exactly the same treatment as if they'd assaulted a Muggle
girl.


Alla:

Yes, of course and that is why what Dumbledore's father did feels to
me as wrong while completely understandable.


Magpie:
She doesn't tell them what's going on at school--and neither does
Dean tell his parents. She bails on a ski vacation at the last minute
to stay with the Weasleys, lying to them that she's just decided to
stay at school at the last minute and study like all the kids who
care are going to do. She singles out telling them she's made Prefect
because "that's something they'll understand." She doesn't tell them
anything about what's going on 7th year (or most of the time, it
seems) and brainwashes them into thinking they're other people so
they'll move to Australia. Even her teeth fit the pattern when
Hermione fixes them herself over their objections. Again, that's not
something I really fault her for, but she's not rebelling against
their authority, she doesn't recognize them as having any authority.

This isn't a normal daughter/parents relationship. The plot reasons
for this are obvious, but it works easily because it completely goes
along with Wizard attitude towards Muggles in general. <SNIP>

Alla:

I really beg to differ about Hermione's relationship not being a
normal daughter/ parents relationship. So she lies to her parents
because she wants to either a) stay with the family of the boy she
likes every chance she gets or b) she wants to help the boy she and
the boy she likes best friends with. And again, I am not even talking
about justifications for what she does, since I find it irrelevant
for my argument. All that I am saying that I think Hermione does what
a lot of teenagers do. Sure the staff she does not tell her parents
may have been easily accessible to some of wizarding parents, but not
all of it. Ron also does not tell his family everything and while
some of it is known to them anyways, they are not for example privy
about the mission they go on with Harry and that has nothing to do
with them being wizards. It is just that a secret that Trio decided
not to share with anybody including their families.

And I also do not see where you see Hermione as not recognizing them
of having any authority. Sure, sometimes she is successful of
convincing them to let her stay with Weasleys. But despite the fact
that she would love to stay with Harry and Ron on Christmas break in
first book and figure out who Nicholas Flamel is, she goes home. And
she goes with her parents to France even though I think that if Ron
asked Weasleys would be happy to take her with them to Egypt. And she
does not even go shopping for books without her parents in CoS.


Magpie:

It would be touching if we were talking about Hermione's pet dogs
that she selflessly robbed of all memory of her and sent to live on a
farm where they'd be happier--since anyway it's not like they could
understand anyway. Her treating two grown, intelligent human beings
the same way is, imo, chilling. Even more so since the book always
takes the attitude that it's Hermione who's the victim here because
she "has to" lie and manipulate them because they're Muggles.


Alla:

Yes I find the anguish of the daughter who thinks that it is possible
that her parents will never recognize her because she is saving their
lives heart wrenching . But as I wrote to Kemper, before I read it on
the list it did not enter my mind that Hermione did it without her
parents consent. I acknowledge the other interpretation, but myself I
believe that Hermione sit her parents down and explained their
options and I happen to think that they would do so in order to avoid
accidentally giving out information about her.







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 14 19:21:39 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:21:39 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g30o3n+je3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g315o3+jft7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183261

Alla:
> > 
> > I get the impression that good guys in the books want not as much
 as treat muggles as second class citizens, but just to keep their 
affairs a secret from muggles as much as it is possible and that is 
why probably charms that I usually would hate do not bother me, since
 to me they are nothing more than metaphor for please leave us alone.
> 
> Magpie:
> Yes, they do want to keep it secret but it's obviously also led to 
Muggles being okay to interfere with in general. Memory charms when 
performed on Wizards are treated very differently--often as crimes by
bad guys. <snip>

Carol responds:

With regard to Memory Charms performed by Wizards on other Wizards, I
think we have to consider who performed them and why. Lockhart's
Memory Charms are never excusable. He's either taking credit for
someone else's knowledge and exploits (as in all his books) or he's
trying to wipe out the memories of two boys completely (laeving ginny
to die). The backfiring Memory Charm is poetic justice, to say the
least. Kingsley's Memory Charm on Marietta is something else again.
sure, it's a quick-thinking response to DD's and Harry's predicament,
but now Marietta is being punished through long-lasting, disfiguring
pustules spelling out "SNEAK," for a misdeed she can't even remember.
A Confundus Charm that would wear off would have been more
appropriate, IMO. IIRC, Hermione also performs one on Xenophilius as
they're leaving his house. Exactly how that's supposed to help him, I
don't know. (Using a Memory Charm on DEs earlier in the book is, of
course, a different matter.)

Memory Charms on Muggles are another matter. They seem to be
necessitated by the Statute of Secrecy, which started out as a way of
protecting the WW from Muggles but seems to have gotten out of hand.
If a Muggle sees magic performed, or sees a giant and lives, or sees a
dragon and lives, the memory of the event has to be wiped out. It
would be different if the only deterrent to Muggles knowing that the
WW existed in their midst was Muggle-repelling Charms like the one on
the Leaky Cauldron (and the Muggles' own tendency to deny the
existence of magic and find some other explanation). But once dragons
and giants and Death Eaters come in contact with Muggles, JKR has to
have a way to make the Muggles forget the experience. 

Just out of curiosity, what do others think would have happened to the
Robinson family had their memories not been modified after they were
exposed to Hover Charms, Levicorpus, and other indignities such as
being spun around, all the while in terror of falling sixty feet to
their deaths, if their memories hadn't been altered? How could they
explain their experience and their terror, to other Muggles, who would
think that the whole family were either lying or had gone mad?

JKR has to have the Statute of Secrecy so that the WW is unknown to
most Muggles (those who aren't Prime Minister and don't have
Muggle-born Wizards or witches as children), and Memory Charms, like
Muggle-Repelling Charms, seem to be a natural extension of that need
for secrecy, a means of insuring it almost absolutely. But it seems to
me that they're overused, in fact, abused, and I tend to agree that
whatever Hermione did to her patents' memories (not technically a
Memory Charm) was entirely unnecessary and presumptuous. It would have
been much better to tell them part of the truth and convince them to
leave the country with their identities and memories intact.

Why not let the Robinsons tell their story, which wouldn't be
believed, in any case? Why make the Muggles who witnessed the "murder"
of Peter Pettigrew believe that a gas main exploded rather than a
Wizard blowing up the street? It all boils down to the Statute of
Secrecy, which also justifies the tricks that Dumbledore plays on Mrs.
Cole at the orphanage so that he can learn what he needs to know about
Tom Riddle and ensure that Tom is allowed to attend Hogwarts.

IMO, JKR has written herself into a corner. Once she's created the
Statute of Secrecy (which enables the nonmagical reader to believe
that a hidden magical world exists within our own), she has to find
the means to keep that world a secret, including various spells. The
problem is that some of these spells, even when used by specially
authorized Obliviators, really do seem invasive and as bad, in their
way, as the actions of the DEs at the QWC.

Carol, who realizes that the whole Lockhart subplot depends on Memory
Charms being performed on Witches and Wizards but would like to think
that *Muggles* don't need them (cf. the Prime Minister, who will never
tell anyone what he's seen, knowing that he won't be believed)




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun 14 22:34:39 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:34:39 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g30ui4+q4g9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g31h1v+3nk1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183262

> Alla:
> 
> Yes, of course and that is why what Dumbledore's father did feels to
> me as wrong while completely understandable.

Magpie:
Yes, a Muggle might have killed somebody too. And been persecuted for 
it. But that's a different point than the fact that Wizards think of 
Muggles as inferior beings and even benignly treat them as such.


> Alla:
> 
> I really beg to differ about Hermione's relationship not being a
> normal daughter/ parents relationship. So she lies to her parents
> because she wants to either a) stay with the family of the boy she
> likes every chance she gets or b) she wants to help the boy she and
> the boy she likes best friends with. And again, I am not even 
talking
> about justifications for what she does, since I find it irrelevant
> for my argument.

Magpie:
Her justifications aren't irrelevent. That's what makes her 
different. Sure kids lie to their parents. They don't just think they 
have to to do so because their parents are dummies who can't handle 
the truth. Hermione knows she's got a ton of power over her parents 
and it's her right to use it. There's no way that doesn't just 
fundamentally change the relationship--and in this universe there's 
nothing balancing that out. 

Wizard parents are shown reacting to things that happen at school and 
they know what's going on with Voldemort and make decisions for their 
children based on that and the kids listen to their authority. The 
Grangers's opinion doesn't matter to anyone. Their daughter always 
knows best and she can always lie and get away with it with all the 
groundwork already laid. Wizard parents have authority over their 
children and use it regularly. In fact, they seem to be closer to 
their kids than many people are nowadays. Kids look to their parents 
a lot because family is very important--if you're a Wizard.

Teenagers lie to their parents, they don't think of their parents as 
if they are the children who need to be protected unless there's 
something seriously bad going on. And since everyone knows that 
teenagers will try to lie, there's generallly some systems in place 
to help their parents. Not so if your child is a Wizard. Wizarding 
adults will take care of it.

Alla:

Ron also does not tell his family everything and while
> some of it is known to them anyways, they are not for example privy
> about the mission they go on with Harry and that has nothing to do
> with them being wizards. It is just that a secret that Trio decided
> not to share with anybody including their families.


Magpie:
Yes, it's known to them anyways. That's an important thing for any 
parent. Ron's parents actually know a whole lot about what's going on 
with him, and his not telling his parents about the mission is a good 
example. Ron's parents agree to him going on a mission they don't 
know everything about. They know some basics and Ron's 17 by that 
point and almost an adult. They can talk to each other as adults and 
agree, and they go on living their lives. The Grangers are 
brainwashed. Ron's relationship with his parents is basically honest. 
Hermione's is by the end of the series is usually about dishonesty 
when they come up at all. They're inconvenient to the plot but aren't 
supposed to be hated like the Dursleys (who wind up being treated 
with more respect in this area). 

Alla: 
> And I also do not see where you see Hermione as not recognizing them
> of having any authority. Sure, sometimes she is successful of
> convincing them to let her stay with Weasleys. 

Magpie:
I see it every time there's a disagreement about what Hermione's 
going to do past something like first year, and Hermione's choice 
wins out because her parents "don't understand." And not "don't 
understand" in an emo teenager way, but "don't understand" in a 
condescending way because they're Muggles so she just has to do 
whatever she has to do. I don't see what her going to France with 
them has to do with anything, whether or not she'd have loved to go 
to Egypt with the Weasleys. I'm not surprised the example where she 
would love to stay but goes home is when she's 11. That would just be 
bizarre by the time she's in 5th year.
 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes I find the anguish of the daughter who thinks that it is 
possible
> that her parents will never recognize her because she is saving 
their
> lives heart wrenching . 

But as I wrote to Kemper, before I read it on
> the list it did not enter my mind that Hermione did it without her
> parents consent. I acknowledge the other interpretation, but myself 
I
> believe that Hermione sit her parents down and explained their
> options and I happen to think that they would do so in order to 
avoid
> accidentally giving out information about her.

Magpie:
Given that we've got consistent examples of Hermione not sitting her 
parents down and telling them anything, that seems highly OOC for 
Hermione. I think she'd also have said that if that's what she did. 
They would have been part of the plan, they'd have argued, they'd 
have wanted to help, they'd have taken a long time to get ready to 
leave. (The fact that she has to give them a false idea that they 
want to go to Australia also makes it seem like she's manipulating 
them.) It's presented as just part of Hermione's plan. When it comes 
to plans her habit is doing it without telling anybody until 
afterwards. 


Carol:
Memory Charms on Muggles are another matter. They seem to be
necessitated by the Statute of Secrecy, which started out as a way of
protecting the WW from Muggles but seems to have gotten out of hand.

Magpie:
Yes, I agree. But I think it's also going hand in hand with the basic 
contempt for Muggles. A different world could have memory charms used 
in a system that had a very different attitude towards it. Here it's 
all part of the superiority complex. Which is consistent within the 
world so it makes internal sense. I just don't think you can have 
that and also think that if a reader was zapped into that world they 
wouldn't be treated as inferior too. That seems to be a big part of 
the appeal of being a Wizard.

-m




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 14 22:59:05 2008
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:59:05 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g30kc5+gg1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g31ifp+eokn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183263

> Zara:
> I don't see that the new story proves anything one way or the other 
> regarding Montavilla's proposal. For whatever reason, the series 
> includes this near-universal prejudice against Muggles among 
> Pureblood (and other wizard-raised) wizards. James and Sirius are two 
> characters from that background. So Rowling has the choice of making 
> them either 1) uniquely sensitive and thoughtful regarding this 
> prejudice or 2) just like the rest. Frankly, I don't think 1) fits 
> their characters as revealed in the books. And 2) combined with 
> being "the height of cool" makes the interaction with the Muggle cops 
> depicted in the notecard story write itself.
<snip>

lizzyben:

Well, we can expect teen!James & Sirius to be obnoxious as that is
their personality as seen in various flashbacks. And you could also
expect these wizards to have the same prejudice against Muggles as
other wizards. You could also expect them to perhaps get a kick out of
a prank or two against a Muggle, or enjoy humiliating pranks in
general as seen in SWM. 

The difference is that it isn't just James & Sirius making fun of the
Muggles; the narrator is as well. When the policemen get the car stuck
in the alley, the policemen have to squeeze themselves along the alley
walls to stop James & Sirius. Here is how the narrator describes this: 

"There was so little space between the car doors and the walls of the
alley that Fisher and Anderson had difficulty extricating themselves
from the vehicle. It injured their dignity to have to inch, crab-like,
towards the miscreants. Fisher dragged his generous belly along the
wall, tearing buttons off his shirt as he went, and finally snapping
off the wing mirror with his backside."


LOL, he's fat! The fat Muggle can't fit through the alley & snaps the
mirror off the car. His dignity is injured, & he looks foolish. IMO
this is clearly presented as something that we're supposed to laugh at
or find amusing.

There's also slapstick humor at Muggles falling: "Fisher's knees
bucked; he sat down hard; Anderson tripped over Fisher's legs and fell
on top of him, as FLUMP - BANG - CRUNCH."

The Muggle policemen are also quite cowardly in the end: 

"There was an earth-shattering crash, and Fisher and Anderson threw
their arms around each other in fright; their car had just fallen back
to the ground."

I think this image is also supposed to be funny. Two grown men
throwing their arms around each other like little kids. Muggles
transformed into petrified idiots at the sight of magic. LOL.

The narrator also shows that Sergeant Fisher doesn't like rock
bands or punks, that he is middle-aged, not all that bright, &
apparently conservative & conventional in every way. In other words, a
typical Muggle. He's Uncle Vernon in a uniform. When people say that
they can't identify w/the Muggles in the story, it's because Muggles
are consistently portrayed as ignorant, conventional, oafs. And it's
not James or Sirius who are portraying non-wizards that way - it's JKR. 


lizzyben







From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 15 00:52:56 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:52:56 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g315o3+jft7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g31p58+r0np@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183264

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> IIRC, Hermione also performs one on Xenophilius as
> they're leaving his house. Exactly how that's supposed to help him, I
> don't know. 


zanooda:

I think Hermione Obliviated Xenophilius not to help him, but to
prevent him from revealing to the DEs some details of HRH's visit -
like the fact that Ron was there, which she wanted to conceal (that's
why she made Ron wear the Cloak during their escape). Maybe Hermione
also didn't want the DEs to know the reason for their visit, although
this is less likely, considering that she didn't believe one word of
Xeno's story about the Deathly Hallows and didn't consider it
important at that point.




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 15 02:09:53 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 02:09:53 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2s1pp+qbt9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g31tlh+s973@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183265

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> Thinking about James and Sirius communicating with muggle police in 
> the story made me think about muggles and wizards relationships, in 
> particularly about why one would want to identify with muggles of   
> the potterverse.
> <snip>
> No, I am not talking about wizards treating muggles badly; I fully 
> understand the logic of this argument and to extent even agree with 
> it.
> <snip>
> So I guess the question is what are the reasons for you to identify 
> with muggles in Potterverse?
> <massive snip>

Betsy Hp:
Another fascinating question! <g>  I'm very pro-Muggle and very anti-
Wizard, but I didn't start out that way. PS/SS seemed to paint the 
Muggle world as very bland and grey; sort of like that 
movie, "Pleasantville", before color seeped in.  In contrast, the WW, 
as others have pointed out, seemed to be the world of creativity, of 
color if you will, where what you imagined would come true if you 
believed it hard enough.

But as the series progressed, and we learned more and more of the WW, 
witnessed the state of education at Hogwarts, and met more and more 
Wizards, I came to realize the reverse was actually true.  The WW was 
very much "Pleasantville" without the color, and they seemed willing 
to do anything to keep it that way. (Wizards would *so* have met up 
at the bowling alley. <bg>)  No Cubism movement for them, thank you 
*very* much: Art should reflect reality or it shouldn't exist at 
all.  And *certainly* it's not worth teaching the children about.

Magic was reduced to a form of technology: handy for getting stuff 
done, but without much actual *magic* to it.  And frankly, we 
(Muggles) created better technology.  Note that the Weasleys needed 
Muggle technology to get their brood to the train station (heck, note 
that Hogwarts needed Muggle technology to get the students to the 
castle).

The WW has no *numinous* whereas I know first hand that the Muggle 
world is *brimming* with it, if you know where to look.  The highest 
creative use we saw the WW put itself to was a joke shop.  Much as I 
dislike the twins, I'll fully admit that they were the probably the 
most free-thinking and creative characters we met.  And how did they 
express their creativity?  A joke shop.  The Muggle world gives us 
Brahms, Miles Davis, Chaucer, Van Gogh, Ella Fitzgerald, Einstein.  
The WW gives us fart jokes.  I know which world *I'd* rather be in.

Also, if it came down to it?  Muggles would kick Wizard *ass*.  Go 
Muggles!! <rbg>

Betsy Hp 




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Jun 15 13:01:53 2008
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:01:53 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2vgnr+hrmj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g333s1+4nf5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183266

Alla:
> See, I do not think it should have any influence whatsoever. I think
> muggles should have a right to persecute a wizard who breaks muggle
> law and vice versa. If murderer who cannot do magic may be hurt by
> it, I won't cry much.

Ceridwen:
If you mean through the justice system, then I agree with you.  If 
you mean a random wizard taking it on himself or herself to punish 
someone they think perpetrated some crime or wrong, then I disagree.  
The possibility of mistaken identity is too great.  We have laws in 
society to prevent that sort of thing, leaving it to the agreed-upon 
system to redress, not to vigilante justice.  Also, when a person is 
accused of a crime, he or she is informed of this accusation and has 
the chance to plead his or her case in court.  The Ministry sending 
out wizards to Obliviate someone without giving them a fair hearing 
is breaking that ideal in our world.

And the Ministry does just that.  Look at the way they treat Mrs Figg 
at Harry's hearing.  They don't want the word of a Squib.  Muggles 
are less than Squibs to wizards.  Muggles get no hearing at all.  
Squibs in the WW and slaves in earlier Muggle times don't count as 
full persons.  Muggles are less than that.

Alla:
> And I also do not see where you see Hermione as not recognizing them
> of having any authority. Sure, sometimes she is successful of
> convincing them to let her stay with Weasleys.

Ceridwen:
A kid convincing her parents to let her stay with a friend instead of 
going on a family vacation is one thing - kids do that all the time.  
Hermione doesn't tell them about anything dangerous happening at 
Hogwarts.  Her parents don't know what's happening there, and have no 
way of knowing because they don't get WW information like the 
wizarding parents of students at the school.  Her parents have no 
realm of authority over her, to keep her out of school like some 
wizarding parents have done, or to withdraw her from school durning 
the year as some wizarding parents did, because they don't know 
there's something bad going on.  They don't know about the 
petrifications, they don't know about Voldemort's return (or, 
probably, about Voldemort), they don't know about the escaped 
criminal Sirius Black possibly being at the school, they know 
nothing, because their only source of information is Hermione, and 
she isn't telling them.

I would want to know if an escaped murderer was lurking around my 
daughter's school.  I would want to know if my daughter was in danger 
of being killed by a maniac with followers.  I would want to know if 
my daughter was in a targeted group for some mysterious petrification 
which is going on.  Hermione is in that targeted group.  She doesn't 
tell her parents.  They would probably withdraw her from school if 
they knew.  The WW doesn't tell them, either.  You'd think they would 
contact all parents of Muggleborns and tell them that Muggleborn 
students are being targeted, but they don't, either.  It isn't just 
Hermione, it's the entire world who disrespects the Grangers.

As far as Hermione sitting her parents down and explaining things to 
them, there are two things wrong with this scenario.  1:  Hermione 
has never done that before.  Why now?  2:  This is the ***child*** 
sitting the ***parents*** down, not the other way around.  Children 
don't sit parents down to spell things out.  Period.  That is the 
height of disrespect and condescention on the part of the child.  
Hermione doesn't talk about their touching, tearful agreement to 
***be sent*** away, she just talks about how hard it was for her to 
Obliviate them of the memory of seventeen years together.  She was 
almost, in an oblique way, bragging about her creativity of plot and 
her kind-heartedness.  It's for the Muggles' own good, after all.  
*snort*  A kid talks to her parents.  She doesn't "sit them down."  
That's what the parents do to the kid, because the parents are the 
authority figures, not the child.

As someone else mentioned (Magpie?  A_Svrin?), at the end, the 
Dursleys were accorded more respect than the Grangers by merely being 
evacuated and not, as far as canon tells, memory-charmed.  One would 
think the Order, if anyone, would think of the Grangers since 
Hermione is part of Harry's inner circle, but they didn't.  That this 
is a prevailing attitude in the WW is apparent when even the Good 
Guys don't give a second thought to the Muggle parents of their 
people.

On the Dursleys, on one level we're supposed to laugh at these 
cartoonish villains getting any sort of come-uppance.  When you take 
it all in context with the prevailing attitude, which these children, 
wizard-born and Muggle-born both, are being innoculated with at 
school and in the WW at large, it takes a very different color.  The 
question was, why identify with Muggles?  The larger implication, for 
me, is, why stand up for the powerless against those with power when 
that power is misused?  The Dursleys as individuals are 
reprehensible, sure.  But as part of a maligned group, they take on 
different meaning.

Something I've been meaning to mention, ever since your second look 
at PS/SS, but have been too busy to get back to, and then things 
moved on - We saw Lily's level of magic in DH.  Harry never met that 
level.  He couldn't control his flight, Lily could.  Harry couldn't 
control growing his own hair back, but Lily could magically animate a 
flower.  Little Sev (I read it as accidentally, but that doesn't 
change that it happened) dropped a tree branch on Petunia.  That she 
doesn't get it is beside the point for her.  They sneak into her room 
and invade her privacy.  Doesn't matter if Lily was or wasn't in on 
it from the beginning, she knew and didn't tell, didn't stop Sev, and 
did read the fruits of his invasion.  This is Petunia's experience 
with WW children.  She expects the same from Harry.  I can completely 
see Petunia believing that Harry would be as magically powerful as 
her sister, and believe that she'll be at the worse end of the 
stick.  By the end of DH, the Dursleys were much more sympathetic, 
and things that happened to them in previous books take on new and 
more sinister implications for me.

Ceridwen.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 15 13:33:52 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:33:52 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g333s1+4nf5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g335o0+2joi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183267

Magpie:
Yes, a Muggle might have killed somebody too. And been persecuted for
it. But that's a different point than the fact that Wizards think of
Muggles as inferior beings and even benignly treat them as such.

Alla:

Um, yes it is a different point. I mentioned it initially in response 
to your argument that you would not want wizards deciding what is a 
fair punishment for hypothetical you who did something wrong to 
wizard. Or how I understood your argument.

I was saying that I disagree and that if muggle did something wrong 
to wizard, muggle should be punished. I understood you saying that 
you want muggle to be off the hook, but then you said that you think 
that muggles should get fair trials, so we seem to be in agreement.

Magpie:
Her justifications aren't irrelevant. That's what makes her
different. Sure kids lie to their parents. They don't just think they
have to  do so because their parents are dummies who can't handle
the truth. Hermione knows she's got a ton of power over her parents
and it's her right to use it. There's no way that doesn't just
fundamentally change the relationship--and in this universe there's
nothing balancing that out.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Her justifications are irrelevant **to me** for the purpose of this 
argument exactly because I do not buy that they are different, for 
the most part anyways. You seem to be saying that she lies to her 
parents because their muggles and because she can. And I am saying 
that she lies to her parents because almost every teenager thinks 
that they know better and does so at some point of their lives.

Magpie:
<SNIP>
Teenagers lie to their parents, they don't think of their parents as
if they are the children who need to be protected unless there's
something seriously bad going on. And since everyone knows that
teenagers will try to lie, there are generally some systems in place
to help their parents. Not so if your child is a Wizard. Wizarding
adults will take care of it.

Alla:

Really? Lupin is not Harry's parent of course, but it seems to me 
that by yelling at him and sending him to his wife and kid Harry was 
trying to do exactly that among other things , protect him. I mean, 
he wanted him to go back to his wife and child of course, but also to 
protect him IMO.

Magpie:
Yes, it's known to them anyways. That's an important thing for any
parent. Ron's parents actually know a whole lot about what's going on
with him, and his not telling his parents about the mission is a good
example. Ron's parents agree to him going on a mission they don't
know everything about. They know some basics and Ron's 17 by that
point and almost an adult. They can talk to each other as adults and
agree, and they go on living their lives. The Grangers are
brainwashed.  <SNIP>


Alla:

I cannot find the canon for Grangers not knowing the basics, 
actually. People keep saying that Hermione did not even tell them 
that Voldemort is back and I just cannot find it. It may exist and 
you may be right, but I would like to ask for a page, please.


Magpie:
<SNIP>
Given that we've got consistent examples of Hermione not sitting her
parents down and telling them anything, that seems highly OOC for
Hermione. I think she'd also have said that if that's what she did.
They would have been part of the plan, they'd have argued, they'd
have wanted to help, they'd have taken a long time to get ready to
leave. (The fact that she has to give them a false idea that they
want to go to Australia also makes it seem like she's manipulating
them.) It's presented as just part of Hermione's plan. When it comes
to plans her habit is doing it without telling anybody until
afterwards. <SNIP>


Alla:

She also did not say that she sneaked up on her parents and 
obliviated them without them agreeing to it. It did not even come to 
me the first time that she could have done so, but I do not see her 
specifically mentioning it one way or another.

Do not get me wrong ? if she did do so without her parents consent, I 
of course would think that it is wrong and condescending of her. But 
number one even if she did and as I said I am not sure I believe it, 
this one accident to me does not raise to a **pattern** of Hermione 
treating her parents any differently than other teenager.

Alla:
> See, I do not think it should have any influence whatsoever. I think
> muggles should have a right to persecute a wizard who breaks muggle
> law and vice versa. If murderer who cannot do magic may be hurt by
> it, I won't cry much.

Ceridwen:
If you mean through the justice system, then I agree with you. If
you mean a random wizard taking it on himself or herself to punish
someone they think perpetrated some crime or wrong, then I disagree.
The possibility of mistaken identity is too great. <SNIP>

Alla:

Well, both. Meaning that of course if that existed in RL I would say 
through justice system, but also I meant that if in the book you 
would feel okay with wizard punishing wizard with some sort of carmic 
justice, if that other wizard really did something wrong, I do not 
see that it is not okay to do the same to the muggle. My murderer 
example still holds for me. 


Ceridwen:
<SNIP>
They don't know about the
petrifications, they don't know about Voldemort's return (or,
probably, about Voldemort), they don't know about the escaped
criminal Sirius Black possibly being at the school, they know
nothing, because their only source of information is Hermione, and
she isn't telling them.

Alla:

Same question here. Are you sure that they do not know all that? Are 
you sure that they have no authority to withdraw her from school? I 
thought some muggle parents did, but I have to double check.

Ceridwen:
<SNIP>
As far as Hermione sitting her parents down and explaining things to
them, there are two things wrong with this scenario. 1: Hermione
has never done that before. Why now? 2: This is the ***child***
sitting the ***parents*** down, not the other way around. Children
don't sit parents down to spell things out. Period. That is the
height of disrespect and condescension on the part of the child. 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Yes, sure, change the wording to Hermione sitting with her parents or 
whatever sounds less condescending. Substantively it does not change 
matters much for me, honestly.  I see no proof that she sneaked up on 
them and just obliviated them. IMO of course.

Alla





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 15 13:56:57 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:56:57 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g335o0+2joi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g33739+aonh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183268

Alla:
<SNIP>
You seem to be saying that she lies to her
parents because their muggles and because she can. <SNIP>

Alla:

Make it because "they are Muggles". Ugh.




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sun Jun 15 14:36:24 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:36:24 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g335o0+2joi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g339d8+l0uh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183269

> Magpie:
> <SNIP>
> Teenagers lie to their parents, they don't think of their parents as
> if they are the children who need to be protected unless there's
> something seriously bad going on. And since everyone knows that
> teenagers will try to lie, there are generally some systems in place
> to help their parents. Not so if your child is a Wizard. Wizarding
> adults will take care of it.
> 
> Alla:
> Really? Lupin is not Harry's parent of course, but it seems to me 
> that by yelling at him and sending him to his wife and kid Harry was 
> trying to do exactly that among other things , protect him. I mean, 
> he wanted him to go back to his wife and child of course, but also 
> to protect him IMO.

Kemper now:
It seems to me that Harry is holding Lupin accountable to the
responsibilities of being a husband and father.  Harry in not
condescending toward Lupin.  Harry already knows that Lupin's life is
in danger.  Lupin has all the information to make whatever poor choice
he wishes to.  The Grangers most likely did not as they would have to
get that information from Hermione which seems unlikely as it would be
OOC.

Kemper 




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Jun 15 15:09:38 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:09:38 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g335o0+2joi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g33bbj+lghn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183270

> Magpie:
> Her justifications aren't irrelevant. That's what makes her
> different. Sure kids lie to their parents. They don't just think 
they
> have to  do so because their parents are dummies who can't handle
> the truth. Hermione knows she's got a ton of power over her parents
> and it's her right to use it. There's no way that doesn't just
> fundamentally change the relationship--and in this universe there's
> nothing balancing that out.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Her justifications are irrelevant **to me** for the purpose of this 
> argument exactly because I do not buy that they are different, for 
> the most part anyways. You seem to be saying that she lies to her 
> parents because their muggles and because she can. And I am saying 
> that she lies to her parents because almost every teenager thinks 
> that they know better and does so at some point of their lives.

Magpie:
But the only reason Hermione can actually be the one who knows better 
is because they are Muggles and because she can (and feels little 
guilt in doing so). Maybe Ron thinks he knows better than his parents 
at times--his parents tell him otherwise. They have actual power to 
back up their authority, even if their teenagers will sometimes get 
away with stuff. The threat of parents finding out is a real and 
present possibility for all the Weasleys and what their parents think 
is something they consider all the time--not just in terms of what 
they'd want them to do, but how they feel. The respect the kids have 
for their parents informs how they treat them--which is why Percy's 
storming out and not accepting Christmas presents is so condemned.

Hermione can and does assume the role of the authority in the family, 
more and more, to the point where she's changing her parents' entire 
life "for their own good." If Hermione is like a normal teenager 
she's a normal teenager run amock with no boundaries and no 
consequences who's inflated sense of importance is validated 
everywhere she goes. (Regarding Muggles--Wizards set boundaries for 
themselves of course.) It's not like whatever she decides to do re: 
her parents is ever challenged by anybody. If you take Wizarding 
family relations as the norm, Muggleborns are even weirder. 

> Magpie:
> <SNIP>
> Teenagers lie to their parents, they don't think of their parents as
> if they are the children who need to be protected unless there's
> something seriously bad going on. And since everyone knows that
> teenagers will try to lie, there are generally some systems in place
> to help their parents. Not so if your child is a Wizard. Wizarding
> adults will take care of it.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Really? Lupin is not Harry's parent of course, but it seems to me 
> that by yelling at him and sending him to his wife and kid Harry 
was 
> trying to do exactly that among other things , protect him. I mean, 
> he wanted him to go back to his wife and child of course, but also 
to 
> protect him IMO.

Magpie:
I don't understand what you're comparing here. Lupin never helps out 
any Muggle parents. He considers himself to have some authority over 
Harry as a Wizard adult, as I said. Harry isn't condescending to 
Lupin, he just fights with him and offers his opinion. Lupin is then 
free to agree with him or not. That's all Harry did was tell him what 
he thought of Lupin's behavior--and refuse to include Lupin in his 
group, which was obviously Harry's right. 


> Magpie:
> Yes, it's known to them anyways. That's an important thing for any
> parent. Ron's parents actually know a whole lot about what's going 
on
> with him, and his not telling his parents about the mission is a 
good
> example. Ron's parents agree to him going on a mission they don't
> know everything about. They know some basics and Ron's 17 by that
> point and almost an adult. They can talk to each other as adults and
> agree, and they go on living their lives. The Grangers are
> brainwashed.  <SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I cannot find the canon for Grangers not knowing the basics, 
> actually. People keep saying that Hermione did not even tell them 
> that Voldemort is back and I just cannot find it. It may exist and 
> you may be right, but I would like to ask for a page, please.

Magpie:
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I told you I get it from 
Hermione's behavior throughout the books--and the way Muggles are 
treated throughout the books. This isn't the first time a Muggle has 
been given a false desire to go far away (and I think there's always 
some humor in the idea). Plus I find it impossible to believe that 
anybody's parents would agree to this plan as Hermione outlines it. 
They'd insist on a backup to make sure what Hermione's weepy about 
happening wouldn't happen--iow, if she died, they'd want to know. Who 
on earth would ever agree to forget about their child completely? The 
Weasleys wouldn't--but the Grangers would? Agreeing to let their 18-
year-old go into danger if it was important yes, that I believe. This 
scenario just seems silly (not to mention unnecessary) and all the 
danger of Hermione not being remembered comes from her having full 
responsibility for it. So I fill in the scenario one way, you do 
another. But I also think she would have told us if they'd agreed to 
it--that would be part of the story she'd enjoy telling. The only way 
I can even begin to imagine how she'd convince them of this is if she 
came up with a lot of lies to make them agree, which is also 
dishonest and also in character for Hermione. 

We've been shown Muggleborns in the habit of not telling their 
parents anything that's going on (including Hermione), and no 
examples of Muggleborn parents being involved. This, btw, set against 
Wizard children consistently showing us that they discuss this stuff 
with their parents so they know where their parents stand and their 
beliefs are always informing the beliefs of their children, even if 
they sometimes disagree with them and do something else. (With Seamus 
the half-blood we hear what his mother the Witch thinks but never his 
father the Muggle--except that he was surprised when he found out his 
wife was a Witch.)

When Ron gets hurt we hear about the Weasley response--and the 
Malfoys and the Montagues and many other parents who aren't named. 
Not so for the Grangers. Also, our main character is Muggle-raised 
and the Dursleys don't know stuff that goes on with him at school, 
and they're not complaining about reports they don't read. (Petunia 
would read them.) Given all this it seems OOC both for Hermione and 
for the books to think that she's suddenly going to her parents and 
beseechingly asking their permission to meddle with their minds and 
send them to Australia, possibly forever, because of a long story 
she'll explain now. And OOC for any normal parent to agree to it. 
Where as, Hermione coming up with a brilliant plan and executing it 
and then telling people about it is perfectly in character for her as 
an individual and a Muggleborn. Also the fact that Rowling didn't 
think to have any character consider the Grangers pov as some of us 
readers do also imo indicates she didn't think about it. Though I've 
no doubt if it was brought up she'd "fix it" in an interview.

This kind of thing, imo, gets into the real problem of bigotry. Not 
just confining it to people who assault people "because they are" 
whatever group they're in. Few people admit to doing that.

-m




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jun 15 16:57:17 2008
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 15 Jun 2008 16:57:17 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/15/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1213549037.14.11801.m46@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183271

Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday June 15, 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: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20080615/568d7baa/attachment.html>

From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Sun Jun 15 17:14:28 2008
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:14:28 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g333s1+4nf5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g33ilk+sk4i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183272

 
> Ceridwen:
 
> 
> And the Ministry does just that.  Look at the way they treat Mrs 
Figg 
> at Harry's hearing.  They don't want the word of a Squib.  Muggles 
> are less than Squibs to wizards.  Muggles get no hearing at all.  
> Squibs in the WW and slaves in earlier Muggle times don't count as 
> full persons.  Muggles are less than that.

Hickengruendler:

I don't see, where Figg was treated badly except from Fudge. Granted, 
he is a representative figure of the flaws in the Wizarding World, 
particularly in this book, but he's still only one person. Amelia 
Bones was very interested in Figg's testimony. And at the end, the 
majority of the Wizengamot members believed her, since they thought 
Harry to be innocent. 
 
 




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Jun 15 17:30:36 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:30:36 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g2vgnr+hrmj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g33jjs+t3vt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183273

 
> Magpie:
> Almost every single interaction between Hermione and her parents
> shows them not being respected as parents the way Wizards are.

Pippin:
But it's not just wizards vs muggles. Seldom in canon do the haves of
any description treat the have nots with complete respect, even when
they believe with all their hearts that they should. And seldom in
canon do the have nots, justly angry at this sort of thing, direct
their anger (which is to say their energy for change) in a completely
constructive way, even when they think they should. 

Canon shows that treating people as equals when they differ vastly in
power and competence is not easy. In fact it's practically impossible.
People who want a more tolerant world  will have to tolerate mistakes
on both sides. We do see some of that in the epilogue.  If Harry
failed to return his nod, Draco didn't make an issue of it, and Ron
didn't make an issue of Scorpius's name.

James and Sirius made some progress too. Of course they displayed
their arrogance, which we know is going to kill them in the end. But
while the slapstick description cues us to laugh at the fat policeman,
James and Sirius don't make fun of his appearance or his difficulty
with the buttons -- definitely a change from the days when they teased
Snape about his looks. The arrogance remains, but the gratuitous
cruelty is gone.

I don't want to be a Muggle in the Potterverse, but then by the time
the story was over I didn't want to be a wizard either. If I lived in
the Potterverse, I would want to have love, and to be left in
peace. IMO, my odds of that wouldn't be much affected by whether I was
magical or not. 

I sympathize with Frank Bryce and the Muggle prime minister, who were
just trying to do their jobs, and with Petunia and Dudley -- I don't
approve of their actions but I can see why they did what they did. I
doubt that Hermione, Harry and Ron would have done much better if
they'd been saddled with Grawp. Certainly they wouldn't have loved
him. And if they had thought there was a way to squash the Giant out
of him, I bet they would have tried. 

 The way that Muggles are depicted doesn't bother me, because I know
that I'm  reading a highly *selective* account of Muggle doings.
Wizards didn't invent Playstations, airplanes, Ford Anglias or the
London Underground. There's no shortage of brilliant creative Muggles
in the Potterverse, they just don't come into the story much. 

JKR, of course, is under no obligation to give us a representative
sample of Muggles.  What we get, IMO is a full account of one person's
experiences along with a few glimpses of the bigger picture that
completely (and intentionally, IMO) misrepresents an entire group.
That this has implications for Slytherin House as well has already
been noted. True, this is not stated explicitly anywhere.  But as
we're told, books can be misleading.

*Of course* the set up is a mind game, one of many in canon.  We're
cued to read the Muggles as a metaphor for dull and stupid people just
as we're cued to read Snape as a villain and Dumbledore as the
personification of wisdom and benevolence.  But we find, we have our
consciousness raised,  that we have to ignore evidence and dehumanize
the characters to do it. 

 The larger  point is that using people as metaphors is
dehumanizing, period. A metaphor is like a patronus -- it's a
projection with no feelings of its own. It may carry a message, it may
be used to frighten or inspire, but it's just a tool.

I can't sympathize with a metaphor or  make allowances for its
failures. What I see JKR asking me to do is leave the metaphors where
they belong, in fiction, and respect real people as if their thoughts
and feelings mattered as much as my own.

That JKR's good guys often fail to do this does not matter to me as
much as that they take this as their standard of success. They  fail
too often to make good metaphors for goodness -- but so what?

Pippin




From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Sun Jun 15 18:36:30 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:36:30 -0500
Subject: New Card Story (was Re: Muggles v wizards redux)
References: <1213535276.1448.40287.m46@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <003601c8cf17$1b4715a0$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>

No: HPFGUIDX 183274

I have been away and came back to the in-depth discussion of JKR's 
treatment of Muggles and Muggle/Wizarding World relations in the 
series as a whole, and with parts of the discussion relating to the 
new short-short story JKR wrote for the Waterstone charity fundraiser 
about James and Sirius and the police and the motorcycle, etc.

I want to focus on just this new bit of writing.

I found myself conflicted by the story.  Read in one way the story is 
a fun, fast moving romp of a story.  But if one reads it closely it 
has a number of issues.

On the one hand the two police men are shown as very caring 
professionals.  They have been chasing this speeding motorcycle for a 
quarter of an hour as speeds that they don't want to believe (and 
modern day motorcycles can easily go well over 180 MPH, my husband 
says that 25 years ago a good "street bike", that is, not a racing 
track only model could make 140.)  My first mental question was how on 
earth did the police car keep up with the cycle for a high speed chase 
that lasted that long?  Either they would get them trapped in a dead 
end or crash sooner than that or the bike would have gotten away!

But, back to the police, after this high speed chase Fisher is caring 
enough to slow down since he doesn't want to run over one of the two 
riders, who he expects to be thrown off the bike.

And, as near as we can tell, Fisher and his partner are preparing to 
arrest these two, they don't seem to be preparing to beat them up. 
(And James and Sirius deserve arresting, at this point.)

One thing we don't know is who are the three men flying into the alley 
on broomsticks?  Are they Death Eaters who have been trying to track 
James and Sirius down?  Was that why J&S were speeding around in the 
first place, when they had attracted the attention of the police?  In 
that case, J&S's actions are somewhat justified like HRH's during the 
Gringotts Break-in, since they had to get the Horcrux/Cup.

However, if the three men were MoM employees coming to do something 
about the potential breach of the Secrecy Act J&S were totally out of 
line.

BUT if the three men were death eaters, then leaving them "apparently 
insensible" on the ground with "broken bits of broomstick" seems to be 
very mean indeed to the poor policemen, who not only have a badly 
damaged police car and a story that their superior officers won't 
believe, but will sooner or later have some very angry death eaters, 
who might do very nasty things to the confused muggle's who they find 
attempting to administer first aid.

Even if the three men are MoM employees, the best that the police will 
get is to have their police car repaired and their memories modified. 
But if the MoM just remove the flying motorcycle and men on 
broomsticks from their memory and leave them with the damaged police 
car and no explanation, they will almost certainly get into trouble 
for wrecking the car.  Probably it will be assumed that they have been 
drinking or drugging or somesuch.

I assume that JKR has the story all worked out in her mind.  I assume 
that the men on broomsticks are DE's and that after J&S's departure 
the MoM or DD or someone will arrive and grab the DE's and fix the car 
and provide a substitute memory for the police.  And JKR obviously 
doesn't have a problem with memory wipes for muggles in her world.

And couldn't she leave out the "fat" jokes about the poor policemen. 
Cheap laughs about fat people seem so out of place, for someone who on 
her web site expressed concern about young women and girls with weight 
and image issues!  In the books as a whole I had been able to 
rationalize her "fat" jokes aimed at Dudley.  He was being made fun of 
because he was a git not a fat muggle.  But, I thought he turned out 
very well in the end, and there are some nice characters with weight 
issues and other nasties without.

I am now trying to remember if she could write humor without making it 
be "make fun of someone"?

Just some thoughts about a minor bit of JKR's writing.

Jerri 





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Jun 15 19:41:24 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:41:24 -0000
Subject: New Card Story (was Re: Muggles v wizards redux)
In-Reply-To: <003601c8cf17$1b4715a0$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>
Message-ID: <g33r94+7peu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183275

Jerri/Dan Chase"  wrote:
>
> I have been away and came back to the in-depth discussion of JKR's 
> treatment of Muggles and Muggle/Wizarding World relations in the 
> series as a whole, and with parts of the discussion relating to the 
> new short-short story JKR wrote for the Waterstone charity 
fundraiser 
> about James and Sirius and the police and the motorcycle, etc.
> 
> I want to focus on just this new bit of writing.

Potioncat:
Interestingly enough, the thread about the post card is very active a 
the OT site. I take it, most of us don't consider it canon? or was it 
just a fluke that it took off over there?


Taking it just as it it, a short ficlet for charity it's OK. It's a 
quick little adventure. The dialogue and some of the descriptions 
left me flat. In fact, at one point I wondered if it was a hoax.  


Jerri:
> And couldn't she leave out the "fat" jokes about the poor 
policemen. 
> Cheap laughs about fat people seem so out of place, for someone who 
on 
> her web site expressed concern about young women and girls with 
weight 
> and image issues!  

Potioncat:
After I finished the little story, I wasn't sure if I was annoyed at 
her stereotypical police-buffoon character (The character sounded 
just like Chief Wiggam from the Simpsons.) or, if I was annoyed at 
her portrayal of Muggles as inept. Either way, I didn't care for the 
humor.

It is, however, fairly standard cardboard characters one would find 
in a story that had an arrogant teenaged hero as the main character. 
It would have been more interesting to show James and Sirius facing a 
lean, tough cop, if you ask me. But for the humor to work, James and 
Sirius had to be smarter than the policeman. Which explains it all, 
really.  ;-)




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Jun 15 23:28:44 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 23:28:44 -0000
Subject: Do I like ... Ron, Hermione, Pansy ... James, Sirius ...  SEVERUS SNAPE
Message-ID: <g348jc+861h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183276

Mike Crudele started a very active thread in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183133> by writing:

<< I wanted to know if you liked Severus Snape. I don't want to know
if you liked having his character in the books, I've already said that
I liked having Snape in the books and I hate the guy. I'm not really
asking if you sympathize or empathize with him. Heck, I sympathize
with the young Severus in the playground with Lily, per-Hogwarts. No,
what I want to know is if you *liked* Severus? If you were in the
Potterverse, would you be mates with him? (snip) Is there any part of
his behavior you disliked, abhorred, or just thought was a little too
over the top? >>

Part of Rowling's genius (whether intentional or not) is that I like
people in these books whom I wouldn't like in real life. Ron may be
the best example: I like Ron. He's a good kid with a good heart who
suffers from immaturity, but he'll grow out of that. He's brave and
loyal and remarkably lacking of envy, other than wishing he weren't poor. 

And in real life, my view of ordinary kids who suffer from immaturity,
are obsessed with sports and don't like schoolbooks, say mean things
about ugly girls and swots, is I don't like them and I don't believe
they have good hearts. I had many very bad experiences with ordinary
kids when I was a kid myself and have not disposed of the emotional
scars. 

If I were Ron's classmate, I'd probably hate him for saying mean
things about me. Even if he didn't, I can't imagine that being mates
with him would be anything but boring. Still, I outside the book like
him inside it.

Hermione. She's bossy and she's intellectually brilliant and she
brags. If I knew her in real life, I might well wish to "be" her, but
unless she went out of her way to make friends with me, I'd probably
*hate" for being so much cleverer and more successful than me. Still,
I outside the book like her inside it.

Pansy - altho' this may be more my deliberate effort than Rowling's
writing. Pansy is a pretty girl, apparently fashionable, probably
rich, who is arrogant and a snob and a bully. In real life, I wouldn't
care if she also has some good traits. In my fic, I made her also a
clever student with some real intellectual interests, with a sense of
humor, and really in love with Draco, not just cultivating him for his
money or status. If I were her classmate, I'd be the target of her
bullying, and not like it one bit.

I like Sirius and James and Remus. I might have liked Peter in his
younger days if we'd gotten a better look at him. I set out to write a
fic depicting Peter as a basically good kid who was seduced step by
little step into evil. I like Severus. I don't feel any contradiction
about liking both Sirius and Severus, and feeling sorry that they
couldn't have made peace as grown men. People who resemble James and
Sirius and Severus, I feel inclined to like them (from a distance) in
real life, and make excuses for them unless *I* am their victim. 

If I were their classmate, I would have yearned to be mates *and more*
with them. Sirius and James would have hated me: a fat, ugly,
unfashionable, would-be groupie pestering them. They would have been
vicious about it, their allegedly good hearts not extending to people
who annoy them. Peter would have joined in to be like his mates (and
glad to discover someone inferior even to him) and Remus would have
stood by, and I would have grown to hate them. If I'd been able to
spend time with Remus without his mates, I would have fallen more
realistically in love with him, and maybe he would have liked me.
Still, I outside the book like schoolboy them inside it. I don't like
the SWM but I do like the running with the werewolf.

If we'd met as adults (21 - not long left to know each other!), with
adult manners, I would have liked James and Sirius from a distance and
wished to be mates (and more) with them, but it wouldn't have worked
out; at that age, I mistook mere polite friendliness from an
attractive man as encouragement to come on to them, which they would
soon get tired of and try to avoid me. That's a pity, as I'm sure they
would have been fun buddies. I would have liked Remus from close-up
and tried to court him. Maybe his self-esteem was low enough that I
would have succeeded.

I admire (desire) Snape for his intelligence and his snarky wit, which
I imagine were both apparent in his school days, and for his
eloquence, self-possession, and confidence, which he apparently didn't
yet have then, and for his extreme competence and courage, also not
apparent in his school days. Meeting each other as adults in the
Potterverse, I would have immediately had a tremendous crush on him
(greasy hair, sallow skin, and all), and I am sure he would be a very
enjoyable buddy to hang out with -- endless new ideas to talk about,
and lots of humor. I don't know whether I would have been so taken
with him in our schooldays that I would have sought out his
friendship. I don't know how much of his conversation in those days
were tiresome complaining about his tough life; on the other, so was mine.

If he were my buddy, I would forgive all his bullying of other people
and hanging out with Death Eaters. I do not set myself up as an
exemplar of good morals.

The question is how he would react to me. I can't think of any reason
he wouldn't consistently turn his venom (venomous words) on me,
hurting me tremendously, motivating me to go to great lengths to avoid
him. And to criticize him bitterly (behind his back) for his cruelty
to third parties.

Because I am one of the listies who views Snape's classroom treatment
of Harry and Neville and Hermione as not merely mean, but as child
abuse. (The opposite of listies who view it as an excellent teaching
style.) And his treatment of Remus as a teaching colleague and his
behavior in the Shrieking Shack as almost completely unforgivable. And
his taunting of Sirius in OoP is completely unforgivable (altho' I
would have forgiven him for it if he were nice to *me*).





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Jun 15 23:51:55 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 23:51:55 -0000
Subject: Chapter Discussion 22/ talking portraits / Did Snape murder?
Message-ID: <g349ur+rogi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183277

Jmnabers summarized Chapter 22 in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183180>:

<< What, if anything, is achieved in these long months of
camping? >>

A lot of stuff in the earlier books resembled alchemical symbolism
(according to people who know alchemical symbolism, which I don't). I
keep wondering if a long, long camping trip is a known alchemical symbol.

And Carol commented in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183188>:

<< The problem, IMO, is that there aren't enough Horcruxes and
adventures and places to look to fill up a whole school year, a
built-in weakness in the plot structure of DH. >>

So much time that could have been used to answer the fans' questions!
Such as the source of talking portraits, and where James's ancestors
got their money (was one a master burglar with the invisibility cloak?). 

Aussie Hagrid wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183183>:

<< EXTRA QUESTION:
15) Harry would know Dumbledore had the Ring and knowledge of the
cloak. What implications does this have? >>

I don't know what it would imply to Harry, but you reminded me that DD
didn't have the stone, the cloak, and the wand at the same time. He
had the wand and the cloak at the same time, but he gave the cloak
(back) to Harry so he no longer had it when he got the stone. 

When he realized that he had the stone, did he kick himself for not
having kept the cloak? If he had still have the cloak, would he have
grabbed for immortality as Master of Death rather than grabbing for a
chance to see Arianna again? Quite a contrast to the actuality that he
died in the same book where he got the stone... 

I think he had grown tired and lonely and looked forward to death with
the expectation of rest and 'reunion with those who had gone before',
so would not have been tempted to grab for immortality even if he had
all three Hallows in his hands together. 

However, in the moment of realizing that it was the Resurrection
Stone, he may have recalled that he had possessed each of the three
Hallows altho' not all together, out of habit kicked himself for not
having kept the cloak so now he would have all three as he and
Grindelwald had planned, quickly remembered that he didn't want to be
immortal as all his memories of Grindelwald, and Gindelwald and
Arianna and Aberforth, flooded in, and been stirred by those memories
to be so eager to see Arianna again that he forgot the curse on the ring.

Cat McNulty asked in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183185>:

<< Why can paintings/portraits move, talk and interact (they have
sentience), whereas photographs only move but not talk (just amimated
images)? >>

Steve bboyminn replied in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183187>:

<< I remember reading that JKR said that part of the process of
creating a 'living' portrait require some of the physical
essence of the subject of the portrait - some skin, hair, a
drop of blood. It is from this physical essence of the actual
person that the portrait draws its knowledge of the character. >>

I have a non-JKR theory of the talking portraits. I think there may be
a powerful spell on major institutions in the Potterverse which
creates the portraits at the time of death of a person who has been
intimately associated with or very powerful in the institution. So the
portraits of Headmasters of Hogwarts appear in the Headmaster's
Office. Perhaps portraits of the other Professors appear the corridors
around the classrooms where they taught. Portraits of Healers at St.
Mungo's, or at least Chief Healers, appear there. There may be a
gallery of deceased Ministers for Magic in the Ministry building, and
perhaps other galleries of the department heads. (And Snape's portrait
would have appeared in the Headmaster's Office as Zara thought it did
in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183198>)

Wizarding families that have an old family home, such as Malfoy Manor
or 12 Grimmauld Place, may have portraits of deceased family members
appear on the walls of the old family home. Maybe some of these
portraits are so annoying that surviving family members donate them to
Hogwarts - maybe that is where Sir Caradoc came from, a real-life
wizarding Don Quixote whose descendants couldn't stand him calling
them 'varlets' and challenging them to jousts. I can't recall if there
are minor characters in any of the paintings in the books, like the
little girl (the director's young daughter) handing flowers to the
lady in the painting in the movie.

I very firmly do recall that one of the paintings at Hogwarts shows a
group of monks happily getting drunk. For which I theorize that there
is or was a wizarding monastery (or friary: Harry's POV wouldn't have
distinguished), on whose walls appear portraits of deceased Brothers.
And the abbot would have been pleased to be rid of those Bad Examples
by sending them to Hogwarts. However, I wonder whether they all died
together, maybe from a poisoned keg of wine, or did they die of
peaceful old age in their turns, and each add to a painting that
appeared when the first of the clique died? 

Was the Fat Friar associated with this institution or did he join a
Muggle monastery/friary?

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183192>:

<< Snape would not be concerned about a torn soul if his soul were
torn (as opposed to tarnished) already >>

And Alla replied in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183193>:

<< But yes, his concern for his soul being torn tells me that his soul
was probably not torned before, otherwise why would he be concerned.>>

And Magpie replied in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183194>:

<< he could still be concerned for his soul if it had been torn
before. It's not just the first murder that tears it. Presumably every
murder tears it. (snip) Which makes me wonder if you can do anything
to make it whole again or at least heal it. >>

Rowling is a Christian, and therefore believes that even a murderer
can repent and be forgiven (by God). She even has Harry say so,
calling on Voldemort to 'try for a little remorse'. (The word
'remorse' used by Magpie in a part that I snipped, and by Zanooda in a
different post.) 

I suppose that repentance and/or forgiveness mends the torn soul so
that it is whole again. However, how could I know whether the join is
weaker than the original fabric and thus is easier to tear by another
evil deed? Maybe that could go along with a repeat of the sin casting
doubt on the quality of the original repentance... 

Thus, if hypothetical Snape believes (probably with hope but not
confidence) that he has mended the hypothetical tear in his soul by
repentance and subsequent right action, he could fear tearing it a
second time more than he would fear if the same act were a first tear.

Zanooda wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183211>:

<< I'm not sure that every aspiring Death Eater was required to murder
to join. This would turn off some of LV's supporters who liked his
pure-blood ideology, but didn't see LV for what he really was. If some
basically decent and idealistic kid, like Regulus, dreamed to join the
cause, wouldn't it turn him off if the first thing he was asked to do
was to go and murder someone in cold blood? I'm just not sure. >>

To me, not all of LV's voluntary followers and servants were Death
Eaters. One who was too idealistic to commit a murder could associate
with other followers and do other services without/before receiving
the Dark Mark, and be gradually seduced into feeling that murder for
the cause is a good thing and being unwilling to do it is wimpy.
Perhaps recruiters were responsible for determining, and reporting to
LV, when a follower was ready to be made a Death Eater.

Having been marked, the misguided idealist would know that 'you don't
hand in your resignation to LV' unless he doesn't mind being killed by
his former comrades. (Would the recruiter be punished for having
recommended a candidate who still clung to morals, even at cost of
martyrdom?) When assigned to terminate a nuisance, he would be part of
a group sent to kill the victim(s) and therefore further strengthened
in his/her resolve by 1) not wanting to let down the team, 2) not
wanting to look wimpy to the team mates, 3) being afraid of being
punished by the team mates. 





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 16 00:28:48 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:28:48 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux/Pretty Pansy (was: liking Snape)
In-Reply-To: <g33jjs+t3vt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g34c40+slvl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183278

> > Magpie:
> > Almost every single interaction between Hermione and her parents
> > shows them not being respected as parents the way Wizards are.
> 
> Pippin:
> But it's not just wizards vs muggles. Seldom in canon do the haves 
of
> any description treat the have nots with complete respect, even when
> they believe with all their hearts that they should. And seldom in
> canon do the have nots, justly angry at this sort of thing, direct
> their anger (which is to say their energy for change) in a 
completely
> constructive way, even when they think they should. 

Magpei:
So? Those of us arguing for this description of events have said that 
it's reinforced by their society. Treating Muggles badly is one of 
the more acceptable versions. Hermione's relationship with her 
parents goes along with everybody else's view of Muggles and is never 
questioned by anybody. 

Pippin:
> 
> Canon shows that treating people as equals when they differ vastly 
in
> power and competence is not easy.

Magpie:
No, it isn't easy. Even when they're your parents, obviously. 
Nobody's trying to treat them as equals either. The goal of the good 
guys is to be good superiors, not treat them as equals. That's what 
Hermione thinks she's doing as far as I can see. Is it really that 
hard to, for instance, treat a disabled person as basically an equal? 
Why should it be? 

Pippin:
We do see some of that in the epilogue.  If Harry
> failed to return his nod, Draco didn't make an issue of it, and Ron
> didn't make an issue of Scorpius's name.

Magpie:
I don't see anything about it in the epilogue. Harry didn't return 
Draco's nod that I remember hearing about. And it took me a while to 
even realize why Ron not making an issue of Scorpius's name to his 
friends would be significant at all. I guess because of the snigger 
at Draco's name back when he was 11? I think it's clear exactly how 
much of a step forward everybody's taken with Draco. And Ron's the 
one who says "So that's little Scorpius" calling attention to the 
name as if they've already reacted to it in the past.

Pippin:
 But
> while the slapstick description cues us to laugh at the fat 
policeman,
> James and Sirius don't make fun of his appearance or his difficulty
> with the buttons -- definitely a change from the days when they 
teased
> Snape about his looks. The arrogance remains, but the gratuitous
> cruelty is gone.

Magpie:
For me, trying to find some point in stuff that isn't said just 
reinforces how much the books aren't making a point of this at all. 
It never occured to me to read James and Sirius being cheeky to the 
policeman and think of anything to do with Snape or what they weren't 
saying. When Harry calls Dudley stupid I don't assume he's stopped 
noticing he's also fat. Snape's equal to James and Sirius in many 
ways the policemen are not; his looks are a more obvious target.

Pippin: 
> *Of course* the set up is a mind game, one of many in canon.  We're
> cued to read the Muggles as a metaphor for dull and stupid people 
just
> as we're cued to read Snape as a villain and Dumbledore as the
> personification of wisdom and benevolence.  But we find, we have our
> consciousness raised,  that we have to ignore evidence and 
dehumanize
> the characters to do it. 

Magpie:
I agree we're cued to read certain people certain ways--though I 
don't think Muggles work as a metaphor for dull and stupid people. I 
don't believe it's a mindgame or particularly consciousness-raising 
in the way you seem to be describing.  Even the author's interviews 
don't agree-she reinforces the view of the good guys not this 
supposed mindgame where we all realize that the good guys are doing 
it wrong. I think the books more cleverly justify this kind of thing 
than raise consciousness against it. It seems like even raising this 
problem is considered a subversive reading by the majority. Sometimes 
a stupid reading.

Pippin:
> 
>  The larger  point is that using people as metaphors is
> dehumanizing, period. A metaphor is like a patronus -- it's a
> projection with no feelings of its own. It may carry a message, it 
may
> be used to frighten or inspire, but it's just a tool.

Magpie:
So you're suggesting that JKR's point is that her own use of people 
as metaphors is dehumanizing? 

Pippin:
What I see JKR asking me to do is leave the metaphors where
> they belong, in fiction, and respect real people as if their 
thoughts
> and feelings mattered as much as my own.

Magpie:
So the books are all supposed to be "do as I say, not as I do?" 
Because if that's what she was trying I think it failed. And she 
should probably say that's what she was doing instead of explaining 
how good the good guys are (and how the few times she does seem to be 
making that point about seeing people as metaphors or whatever she's 
showing it as a forgiveable side effect of having your heart in the 
right place). I see something completely different in the way she 
writes and what she says about her writing. I just can't prove she's 
not doing that because that's proving a negative. Which I could 
probably also say about the idea that her true intention is to show 
that the DEs are the good guys. And it also seems undercut by the 
claims of progress by the end of the series described above.

Catlady:
Pansy is a pretty girl, apparently fashionable, probably
rich, who is arrogant and a snob and a bully. 

Magpie:
Is she pretty? She's always described as hard-faced or pug-faced. 
She's a snob and a bully, but doesn't seem to really be prettier or 
more fashionable than our heroines. They beat her or at least match 
her in those areas.

-m




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 16 00:40:16 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:40:16 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux/Pretty Pansy (was: liking Snape)
In-Reply-To: <g34c40+slvl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g34cpg+ti5s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183279

> Pippin:
> We do see some of that in the epilogue.  If Harry
> > failed to return his nod, Draco didn't make an issue of it, and Ron
> > didn't make an issue of Scorpius's name.
> 
> Magpie:
> I don't see anything about it in the epilogue. Harry didn't return 
> Draco's nod that I remember hearing about. 

Magpie:
Oh wait, Now I get it. It's like Ron's thing with the name--it's 
supposed to be significant that if Harry didn't return Draco's nod 
Draco didn't go pink and start threatning him like he did when Harry 
refused to shake his hand when he was 11? I just so don't see that as 
significant at all. Particularly not in terms of treating your 
inferiors as equals.

-m




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 16 08:46:24 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:46:24 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux
In-Reply-To: <g33jjs+t3vt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g35990+n0id@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183280

> Pippin:
> *Of course* the set up is a mind game, one of many in canon.  We're
> cued to read the Muggles as a metaphor for dull and stupid people 
just
> as we're cued to read Snape as a villain and Dumbledore as the
> personification of wisdom and benevolence.  But we find, we have our
> consciousness raised,  that we have to ignore evidence and 
dehumanize
> the characters to do it. 

a_svirn:
That's not the first time this idea of Rowling's playing some sort of 
mind game crops up in the discussion. I must say I don't quite see 
what kind of mind game that might be. Because, you know, if muggles, 
which is to say non-magical people, work as a metaphor for dull and 
stupid people, then we are cued to read *ourselves* as dull and 
stupid. After all we are all here non-magical. Mostly. As  Montavilla 
said upthread we are placed into the situation of a Pole hearing a 
Polish joke. I ask myself, though, is it an elaborate mind game to 
regale Poles with Polish jokes? Or is it just plain rude? 

> Pippin:
>  The larger  point is that using people as metaphors is
> dehumanizing, period. A metaphor is like a patronus -- it's a
> projection with no feelings of its own. It may carry a message, it 
may
> be used to frighten or inspire, but it's just a tool.
> 

a_svirn:
In that case, I am afraid, our very language is dehumanising. Even 
our everyday speech is replete with metaphors, to say nothing of 
works of literature.
a_svirn




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 16 09:08:10 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:08:10 -0000
Subject: Muggles v wizards redux/Pretty Pansy (was: liking Snape)
In-Reply-To: <g34c40+slvl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g35ahq+r1k9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183281

> > Pippin:
> >  The larger  point is that using people as metaphors is
> > dehumanizing, period. A metaphor is like a patronus -- it's a
> > projection with no feelings of its own. It may carry a message, 
it 
> may
> > be used to frighten or inspire, but it's just a tool.
> 
> Magpie:
> So you're suggesting that JKR's point is that her own use of people 
> as metaphors is dehumanizing? 

a_svirn:
I really really don't see it. For one thing metaphors are not 
dehumanising in themselves. Sure enough, sometimes metaphors are 
deliberately used in a "dehumanising" way. Say, when Bassanio likens 
Portia fair tresses with Golden Fleece it does rather indicate that 
he sees her mostly as a source of revenue. But when the Bard compares 
his object of desire with a summer day it is hardly dehumanising, 
now, is it?

Another thing, I don't agree that patroni are merely projections 
without feeling. On the contrary, feelings are essential in producing 
a patronus. The stronger one's feeling, the stronger one's patronus. 
Snape's patronus is an expression of his lifelong devotion to Lilly. 
Tonks's patronus is a manifestation of her love for Lupin. Harry with 
his unique capacity for love produced a patronus that drove away 
hundreds of dementors. It was because of the strength of his 
feelings, not his magical skills or powers he managed the feat. 
a_svirn





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Jun 16 13:31:46 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:31:46 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g2976t+93rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g35q02+u7th@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183282

In post 183133

 "Mike" wrote:
> 
> But that wasn't my question, was it? ;-) I wanted to know if you 
> liked Severus Snape. I don't want to know if you liked having his 
> character in the books, I've already said that I liked having Snape 
> in the books and I hate the guy. I'm not really asking if you 
> sympathize or empathize with him. Heck, I sympathize with the young 
> Severus in the playground with Lily, per-Hogwarts. No, what I want 
to 
?? know is if you *liked* Severus? 

Potioncat:
Mike started this thread just as my RL went into warp drive. I've had 
time to read the responses, but no time to reply myself. I've given 
it some thought as I've rushed around preparing for company and end 
of school. It isn't an easy question to answer.

Severus Snape is still something of an enigma, so that those who 
would count him as friend don't agree on who the man was, and those 
who see him as foe, see him all together differently-- and as varied--
than the first group. So, if I answer, yes, I liked him, it wouldn't 
be same Snape that some of you see.

So, yes, I liked Snape. Now, that didn't surprise anyone, did it? 
Being fully in the fictional Potterverse, and meeting Snape in the 
way we all did, I liked him; not at first. Not till I realized he was 
up to something. I started to see that in most cases, when he was 
being snarky, he was also doing something else. (Guarding the halls, 
protecting Harry) At that point, I started enjoying his sarcastic 
humor, even as I winced at his treatment of the students. 

> Mike:
> If you were in the Potterverse, would you be mates with him? If 
your 
> answer is yes, is it unqualified? That is, would you have been 
mates 
> when he was just pre-Hogwarts, during Hogwarts as a student, only 
> after he returned to Dumbledore to plea for Lily's life, or do you 
> have no qualifications? If your answer is no, are there times in 
the 
> life of Severus Snape that you wouldn't have minded being around 
him? 


Potioncat:
You see, this does become difficult. I think it would depend on when 
I met him. If I had met Severus Snape, Death Eater, I would not have 
become his friend. In real life I avoided KKK members and those who 
had sympathies with them. (Hold the applause, it was nothing.) I did 
however, have friends who held prejudiced ideas.

If I had met him as an 11-year-old, I would have become his friend, 
or had I met him after LV's fall--and found later he had been a DE, I 
would be his friend. Actually, that's how it happened. We met the 
former DE and slowly learned about his past. I'm not sure what would 
have happened, if we had been friends and then I found out he had 
joined the DEs. And, I'm not sure if a friendship would have survived 
his use of Mudblood, but I don't think he arrived at Hogwarts using 
that word.

If we had been friends as youngsters I would die laughing at his 
barbs, and sometimes rebuke him. Wait a minute, maybe I would be more 
like Lupin, and not speak up. Can't really be certain of that one.

Snape's appeal lies in his thirst for knowledge with the subsequent 
magical skills and understanding. He invented spells. He knew 
potions. He appeared to be an outstanding Healer, a Dark Arts 
specialist, if you will. His appeal also lies in his courage and 
loyalty. There was something intriguing in someone who could behave 
so badly while doing the right thing.

> Mike:
> I have a particular revulsion for the Snape in PoA, in the 
Shreiking 
> Shack scene. I've expounded on that enough, I won't continue to 
bore 
?? you. Funnily enough, I was most entertained by Snape in PoA, too.

Potioncat:
The Shrieking Shack scene is one in which friends and foe interpret 
very differently. We all wonder how the other side comes to their 
conclusions. So I won't go into it either. The scene that concerned 
me--as a Snape friend--happened later. Snape's conversation with 
Fudge bothered me a great deal. However, it makes more sense now. 

> Mike:
> I get that some people identify with Snape, just like lots of 
people 
> identified with Harry and I identified with Sirius. Did that make 
you 
?? like Severus, or understand him, or both?

Potioncat:
I used to think that the readers who liked James and Sirius had been 
the kids who had the upper hand at school, the jocks, the practical 
jokers, the in-crowd. The ones who disliked the Marauders or who 
liked Snape (not necessarily the same group) were the kids who were 
picked on or overlooked in general. But I don't think that's 
necessarily true. Many readers liked the Marauders before SWM, and 
continued liking them. Others stopped liking them.  Sometimes you can 
forgive a friend for something that you wouldn't forgive of a 
stranger or an acquaintance.

Several have posted that they would have wanted Severus as a friend, 
but he might not choose them. I don't think so. Young Severus was 
desperate for friends. I think he would have responded to gestures of 
friendship, particularly where the interests were similar.


>Mike also wrote, and I moved the statement:
> If you wanted to be more than mates with Severus, umm, ... I don't 
?? want to know! ;-)

Potioncat:
LOL!  Severely Sigune and I both write fan-fiction. We used to laugh 
at some of the Snape-romance fics. The only thing most Romance!Snapes 
had in common with Canon!Snape was the name. So I set up a challenge 
to write a believable romance for Snape. She popped one out fairly 
quickly. Very good, and I'll recommend it to anyone who asks. But I 
never could write one. I could not work out what kind of romantic or 
domestic relationship Snape would be able to maintain. I came close 
once, but HBP came out and blew the plot out of the water. JKR said 
that a romance could have developed between Lily and Severus, and 
it's telling that their friendship lasted as long as it did. So there 
is something positive to Snape, not seen on the page. (When I 
typed 'developed' the first time, the spellcheck wanted to make 
it 'devoted'. Maybe that's the answer. He would be devoted.)


Yes, well. As I hurried about RL, not able to reply, I thought about 
Mike's post a lot. In fact the question spun around in my head to the 
music from Fiddler on the Roof. A FILK began to form. Of course, I 
didn't have time to writ a FILK. By the time I had time, the thread 
had started to wind down. It wouldn't be worth it to try to work out 
meter and verse now. But here's the rough version that grew in my 
head, to the tune of "Do you love me?" sung by Tevye and Golde, or 
rather 'Did you Like Snape' sung by Mike and Potioncat.

(Mike)
Did you like Snape?

(PCat)
Did I what?

(Mike)
Did you like Snape?

(Pcat)
Did I like Snape?
Rowling says the story's over.
Everything has now been said,
Silver doe, elder wand,
In the shack, he lies, dead!
You'll tear the list asunder!

(Mke)
I really wonder! 
Would you be mates?
The list is getting sluggish, there's nothing to discuss
So I'm asking everyone, 'did you like Severus?'




I said it was a rough draft! Where's Ginger when you need her?








From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Mon Jun 16 14:11:01 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:11:01 -0500
Subject: New Card Story (was Re: Muggles v wizards redux)
References: <1213621807.1048.59542.m46@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <003701c8cfba$ceb05b30$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>

No: HPFGUIDX 183283

Potioncat:
Interestingly enough, the thread about the post card is very active a
the OT site. I take it, most of us don't consider it canon? or was it
just a fluke that it took off over there?

Jerri's reply:
I wonder why the discussion is on the OT list?  It is something that 
JKR wrote about the Harry Potter Universe with the knowledge and 
intent that it be available to the public.  Surely it is as On Topic 
as the stuff that she put on her web site or interviews.  (And I know 
that some don't give interviews the same status as the books, but they 
are discussed on the main list.)

And many thanks to Potioncat for providing the cat's opinion on the 
short-short story.  I know that a short-short story is very difficult 
to write well.

This one has so many things left undefined.  I did join and try to 
follow the thread on the OT list.  Someone mentioned Remus and Peter 
not being along, and feeling left out.  And, of course, we can't know 
what was happening.  If J&S were on business for the Order, perhaps 
they were supposed to be decoying the DE's or other bad guys away 
while R&P were somewhere doing something important.  Or perhaps not. 
We can't know.  The golden bird could be a phoenix or it could be a 
snitch seen through the eyes of a muggle.  Or something else 
completely.

The three men on broomsticks could be DE or MoM employees, or almost 
any wizards, angry at some prank J&S had pulled.

So, I guess that this short-short story raises more questions than it 
answers about what James and Sirius were like and what they were 
doing.  One can read the story and imagine background to support just 
about any view.

(I do think that short-short stories can be well done.  One that I 
have always enjoyed is by Robert Heinlein, titled Searchlight.  At a 
guess it is about twice as long as JKR's, but I feel that it manages 
to tell a complete story.  If JKR had put in more explanation and less 
cruel slapstick aimed at the muggle cops, perhaps she could have 
also.)

Jerri 





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Jun 16 16:09:39 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:09:39 -0000
Subject: What is canon, or what is not.(was.New Card Story (was Re: Muggles v wizards
In-Reply-To: <003701c8cfba$ceb05b30$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>
Message-ID: <g36383+8sh2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183284


> 
> Jerri's reply:
> I wonder why the discussion is on the OT list?  It is something that 
> JKR wrote about the Harry Potter Universe with the knowledge and 
> intent that it be available to the public.  Surely it is as On Topic 
> as the stuff that she put on her web site or interviews.  (And I know 
> that some don't give interviews the same status as the books, but 
they 
> are discussed on the main list.)


Potioncat:
I don't remember why the first question about the postcard appeared at 
the OT site, it just did. Probably inspired by something else going on 
over there. I thought at the time that it was interesting that a 
similar one didn't start over here. I'm not sure how many of us dart 
back and forth between sites. In the heyday of HP discussion, I rarely 
had time to follow both sites.

As to the question 'what is canon?', we've had that come up before too. 
While some of JKR's for-charity writing falls under canon, others don't 
seem to. The Black Family Tree for example, hasn't caught on, and 
really doesn't seem to have anything to do with the plot(s) of the 
books.

There was an add-on to QTTA, a list of names of students who had 
checked it out of Hogwarts library---that also seemed to have nothing 
to do with canon.

Just thoughts.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 16 16:31:09 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:31:09 -0000
Subject: What is canon, or what is not.(was.New Card Story (was Re: Muggles v wizards
In-Reply-To: <g36383+8sh2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g364gd+k6gd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183285

> Potioncat:
> I don't remember why the first question about the postcard appeared 
at 
> the OT site, it just did. Probably inspired by something else going 
on 
> over there. I thought at the time that it was interesting that a 
> similar one didn't start over here. I'm not sure how many of us dart 
> back and forth between sites. In the heyday of HP discussion, I 
rarely 
> had time to follow both sites.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Heee, must clarify my mindset since I was the one who originally posted 
it on OTC.

The **only** reason I posted it on OTC is because I was not sure how 
much people will want to get into discussing the story itself, you know?

If all that is of interest that she did write the story for charity, I 
figured it would be more of OTC area :)

But I most definitely consider it canon.

JMO,

Alla




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 16 20:29:13 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:29:13 -0000
Subject: What is canon, or what is not.(was.New Card Story (was Re: Muggles v wizards
In-Reply-To: <g364gd+k6gd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g36iep+ipun@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183286

> Alla:
> 
> Heee, must clarify my mindset since I was the one who originally posted 
> it on OTC.
> 
> The **only** reason I posted it on OTC is because I was not sure how 
> much people will want to get into discussing the story itself, you know?
> 
> If all that is of interest that she did write the story for charity, I 
> figured it would be more of OTC area :)
> 
> But I most definitely consider it canon.
> 
> JMO,
> 
> Alla

Montavilla47:
So, let's discuss it.  What did people think about the story?  I thought 
it was an interesting insight as to the way JKR views James and Sirius.
They're sort of like Starsky and Hutch, aren't they?  Except that they
don't contrast dark and light, mustache and afro.  They're much of a
muchness.

Of course, the depiction of muggles remains annoyingly stereotypical
of comic police in general.  Fat and stupid.

In a way, it was a bit like one of those previews you get for summer
movies that doesn't show a lot of clips, but one short, funny sketch.  Like
something you might get for an Eddie Murphy or Adam Sandler buddy
film.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 16 21:02:32 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:02:32 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?/ and other characters too
In-Reply-To: <g35q02+u7th@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g36kd8+8mej@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183287

Potioncat:
<SNIP>
I used to think that the readers who liked James and Sirius had been
the kids who had the upper hand at school, the jocks, the practical
jokers, the in-crowd. The ones who disliked the Marauders or who
liked Snape (not necessarily the same group) were the kids who were
picked on or overlooked in general. But I don't think that's
necessarily true. Many readers liked the Marauders before SWM, and
continued liking them. Others stopped liking them. Sometimes you can
forgive a friend for something that you wouldn't forgive of a
stranger or an acquaintance. <SNIP>

Alla:

I am glad that you changed your mind :-). It is definitely not true in 
regards to me. I was not bullied in school on the regular basis, but 
certainly experienced what I would call mild bullying and occasional 
antisemitism added to the mix. In any event even if one would not call 
my experiences bullying, one of the popular crowd I was NOT. That is 
for sure.

And I adore Sirius. I do like James, but as more secondary character.

I read with great interest what Catlady wrote about liking characters 
in the book that one would not like in real life. And I to the extent 
agree with her about some characters.

With Marauders it is partially true. I totally think that after adult 
Sirius will get A LOT of therapy I could have been friends with him ( 
no I do not think I will day dream of him, but as friend - oh 
definitely, person could have show so much loyalty to his friends, I 
would love to have as friend).

Would I like him as kid? Based on SWM only I do not think so, BUT I 
want to know more about him as kid, because him befriending werewolf 
and having courage to reject his dark heritage, I do like.

In any event I was thinking about something else in the story, as to 
how interestingly JKR plays with our likes and dislikes.

And before anybody asks, NO I do not mean it in the negative sense. I 
do not see anything horrible with the writer introducing characters in 
the order she chooses.

Let me try to explain. Just imagine hypothetically that SWM was somehow 
introduced in the PS/SS. I am not sure how, maybe Harry gets to see it 
accidentally in the pensieve or any other way.

So, if JKR would have made that choice, I of course cannot be sure, but 
I think that my thoughts about Sirius would be forever colored by that 
scene and NOT in a good way.

I just find it interesting that she introduced such an ugly scene late 
enough in the story for me not to be enough to experience any 
significant reversal as to my likes and dislikes of the characters.

JMO,

Alla




From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Tue Jun 17 00:54:04 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (jerrichase)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:54:04 -0000
Subject: What is canon, or what is not.(was.New Card Story (was Re: Muggles v wizards
In-Reply-To: <g36iep+ipun@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g371vc+tnq8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183288

> Montavilla47:
> So, let's discuss it.  What did people think about the story?
. . . SNIP . . .
> In a way, it was a bit like one of those previews you get for summer
> movies that doesn't show a lot of clips, but one short, funny 
sketch.  Like
> something you might get for an Eddie Murphy or Adam Sandler buddy
> film.

I agree that I found it lacking.  Perhaps like the mini-movie at the 
beginning of a James Bond or Indiana Jones movie.  Fun, if and only if 
you can let yourself get rid of any tendency to think deeply and let 
yourself roll with the flow.

I had hoped for more when I heard it was about James and Sirius prior 
to Harry's birth.  I had expected/hoped for something that would answer 
some questions, not raise more.  

Jerri





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Tue Jun 17 02:41:51 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:41:51 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What is canon, or what is not.(was.New Card Story (was Re: Muggles v wizards
References: <g371vc+tnq8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005501c8d023$b398afa0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 183289

>> Montavilla47:
>> So, let's discuss it.  What did people think about the story?
> .. . . SNIP . . .
>> In a way, it was a bit like one of those previews you get for summer
>> movies that doesn't show a lot of clips, but one short, funny
> sketch.  Like
>> something you might get for an Eddie Murphy or Adam Sandler buddy
>> film.
>
> I agree that I found it lacking.  Perhaps like the mini-movie at the
> beginning of a James Bond or Indiana Jones movie.  Fun, if and only if
> you can let yourself get rid of any tendency to think deeply and let
> yourself roll with the flow.
>
> I had hoped for more when I heard it was about James and Sirius prior
> to Harry's birth.  I had expected/hoped for something that would answer
> some questions, not raise more.
>
> Jerri


>From what I can tell, it's another one of those "let's run a foul of 
Muggles" stories- not that Jo intended it to be that way, but what substance 
is there to that story? Introduce motorcycle....we knew Sirius had one in 
his youth......being troublemakers.....we knew that too......so, what's new? 
James and Sirius running into Muggles, and having fun with them. I bet those 
two would just justify (blame) having the Wizards wipe the memories of the 
cops based on the other three Wizards riding broomsticks, but still, all of 
these events still happen in the presence of Muggles. James and Sirius 
attempt to look Mugglish- the motorcycle is ridden on the ground up until 
the point the others show up, and they talk of nonsense things (nothing 
relating to the Wizard world), but still, they are riding on Muggle streets 
in full view on a Magical motorcycle- pushing the limits of what a prudent 
or reasonable Witch or Wizard might do.

I don't even know if you can consider this canon, because it doesn't 
introduce any new facts to the information we have. There's nothing here to 
bite on- no substance at all.

Shelley







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Jun 17 03:13:52 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 03:13:52 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?/ and other characters too
In-Reply-To: <g36kd8+8mej@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g37a5g+a104@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183290

Alla:
snip 
> In any event I was thinking about something else in the story, as 
>to how interestingly JKR plays with our likes and dislikes.
snip

> 
> I just find it interesting that she introduced such an ugly scene 
>late enough in the story for me not to be enough to experience any 
> significant reversal as to my likes and dislikes of the characters.


Potioncat:
I think the way JKR strung us along with certain characters was part 
of the fun. Take Barty, Jr. Just the way we were introduced to him 
made him seem possibly innocent, while his father seemed horrible. 
Not till the very end do we see how horrible Barty, Jr. is.

Back to your example. It made me think how different the books would 
have been, if JKR kept the main plots, but told the story 
differently. Say, if we had known the Marauder generation story 
before meeting Harry. How different would Snape have seemed to us, if 
we knew from the beginning that he had loved Lily?

SWM came at an interesting time. It changed how I felt about the 
Marauders. I'm not sure it changed anyone's mind about Snape. Many 
anti-Snape readers decided he must have deserved the treatment. Would 
they have thought that if they hadn't yet met the adult Snape?

I hope at the next charity event, JKR writes about the process of 
Harry Potter, rather than creating a new add-on-story. I'd really 
like to read about the decisions and changes and such.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 17 03:31:34 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 03:31:34 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?/ and other characters too
In-Reply-To: <g37a5g+a104@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g37b6m+3rb2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183291

> Potioncat:
> I think the way JKR strung us along with certain characters was 
part 
> of the fun. Take Barty, Jr. Just the way we were introduced to him 
> made him seem possibly innocent, while his father seemed horrible. 
> Not till the very end do we see how horrible Barty, Jr. is.


Alla:

Oh absolutely. But what she did with Barty to me feels like wonderful 
clever trick. After the end of the book I do not feel like she 
tricked me with Marauders, you know? She just chose to reveal 
different parts of their lives at the time and place of her choosing 
if that makes sense.


Potioncat: 
> Back to your example. It made me think how different the books 
would 
> have been, if JKR kept the main plots, but told the story 
> differently. Say, if we had known the Marauder generation story 
> before meeting Harry. How different would Snape have seemed to us, 
if 
> we knew from the beginning that he had loved Lily?

Alla:

Depends to me on what part of Snape's story would be revealed. If she 
would have revealed everything ( of course she wanted it to be a 
surprise so she would not, hehe) that we know now, probably he would 
have been more sympathetic character. BUT that is only because of him 
looking suicidal when he comes to Dumbledore. That moment would have 
tugged on my emotions for sure and I would have felt some sort of 
sympathy for Snape, remorse and all that. I am a sucker for it, 
usually anyways.

But revealing it when I know how Snape treated her son all his life. 
Oh man. I do not care for his remorse, I want to tell him to shove 
it, you know? And oh dear, I must really hate the character if I am 
not feeling for moment like this.


Potioncat: 
> SWM came at an interesting time. It changed how I felt about the 
> Marauders. I'm not sure it changed anyone's mind about Snape. Many 
> anti-Snape readers decided he must have deserved the treatment. 
Would 
> they have thought that if they hadn't yet met the adult Snape?

Alla:

Cannot speak for all other antiSnape readers, and cannot confirm or 
deny because I certainly did not feel that Snape deserved such 
treatment. I mean, I did sort of but only in the carmic sort of the 
way. Exactly because I knew already how he treated Gryffindor kids. 
But it was completely emotional response. I certainly did not feel 
that kid Snape deserved that, I totally thought that it was ugly.

Now it did not change my opinion of Marauders for sure. I mean, I 
discovered that they were bullies in their youth. Oh well. I already 
knew how much Sirius paid for any and all sins or mistakes in his 
youth.

I embraced that his personality had some ugly traits too and that was 
it. I already a lot of good things and he just became even more 
interesting and complex too.

I wholeheartedly wished that Snape would pay too, but that I only got 
in DH.

Potioncat:
> I hope at the next charity event, JKR writes about the process of 
> Harry Potter, rather than creating a new add-on-story. I'd really 
> like to read about the decisions and changes and such.


Alla:

Me too.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 17 03:50:46 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 03:50:46 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?/ and other characters too
In-Reply-To: <g37b6m+3rb2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g37cam+j1gs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183292

>> Alla:
> 
> Cannot speak for all other antiSnape readers, and cannot confirm or 
> deny because I certainly did not feel that Snape deserved such 
> treatment. I mean, I did sort of but only in the carmic sort of the 
> way. Exactly because I knew already how he treated Gryffindor kids. 
> But it was completely emotional response. I certainly did not feel 
> that kid Snape deserved that, I totally thought that it was ugly.
><SNIP>


Alla:

Isn't it fun replying to myself? Before anybody asks me didn't I 
argue that Snape may have been a bully too? Oh yes, I did and I still 
think it is very possible, I do not think that thinking that and 
thinking that he did not deserve that scene is mutually exclusive.

Just had to clarify.

Alla.




From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Tue Jun 17 06:59:04 2008
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:59:04 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did you LIKE Snape?/ and other characters too
Message-ID: <c2f.368c11ed.3588bab8@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183293

     
 
Potioncat:

SWM came at an interesting time. It changed how I felt about the  
Marauders. I'm not sure it changed anyone's mind about Snape. Many  
anti-Snape readers decided he must have deserved the treatment.  Would 
they have thought that if they hadn't yet met the adult  Snape?
 
Sandy:
 
Well, I had met the adult Snape, and it didn't change the way  I felt about 
him a bit; I still didn't like him. However, I certainly did  not feel he 
deserved the treatment he got and it gave me a lot of insight  into his adult 
character. The gray underpants led me to believe he had an  unhappy home life, and 
he was definitely a target of the campus bullies,  one of them being Harry's 
father and the ringleader no less. It wasn't  hard to understand his bitterness 
but it made him no more appealing. I was  appalled by the Marauders and felt 
sorry for Snape. And I felt badly  because Lily was the only one who tried to 
defend him. 
 
Sandy










**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for 
fuel-efficient used cars.      (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Tue Jun 17 17:38:03 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:38:03 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?/ and other characters too
In-Reply-To: <g36kd8+8mej@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g38spr+jtie@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183294

> Alla:
> Let me try to explain. Just imagine hypothetically that 
> SWM was somehow introduced in the PS/SS. I am not sure how, maybe 
> Harry gets to see it accidentally in the pensieve or any other way.
>
> So, if JKR would have made that choice, I of course cannot 
> be sure, but I think that my thoughts about Sirius would be 
> forever colored by thatscene and NOT in a good way.

Kemper now:
That seems to be what Snape's thoughts are, too :)


> Alla:
> I just find it interesting that she introduced such an ugly scene 
> late enough in the story for me not to be enough to experience any
> significant reversal as to my likes and dislikes of the characters.

Kemper now:
I wonder if time has any correlation to a reader's likelihood to alter
their perceptions about the characters.
I got into HP around the time of PoA's release.  I was always a Snape
fan (after reading that it wasn't him seeking the Stone).  I was
ambivalent about Sirius until OP.  I started to find him annoying
before SWM, but of course that chapter shifted it into a solid dislike
for the character.  But I had established nearly four years of liking
Snape before OP came out, our relationship deepening even more after
re-readings as I awaited OP (which seemed like forever).

Perhaps those who got into HP closer to OP release found it easier to
shift their views as their time with the characters weren't anchored
as long as earlier HP readers.

Kemper




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Jun 18 06:43:43 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:43:43 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?/ and other characters too
In-Reply-To: <g38spr+jtie@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3aaqv+b352@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183295


> 
> Kemper now:
> That seems to be what Snape's thoughts are, too :)

Potioncat:
Uh oh. We're not back to the 'Snape wanted Harry to go into the 
Penseive, are we?  ;-)
> 

> 
> Kemper now:> 
> Perhaps those who got into HP closer to OP release found it easier 
to
> shift their views as their time with the characters weren't anchored
> as long as earlier HP readers.


Potioncat:
There may be something to that. The only change I made was to go from 
ambivilence about Sirius to disliking him. But I think part of it had 
to do with all the discussions about Sirius vrs Severus. Honestly, 
both men could have done more for Harry had they not had their own 
flaws and issues to deal with.




From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Jun 18 18:14:47 2008
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:47 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?/ and other characters too
In-Reply-To: <g3aaqv+b352@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3bjan+7j38@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183296


> > Kemper now:> 
> > Perhaps those who got into HP closer to OP release found it easier 
> to
> > shift their views as their time with the characters weren't anchored
> > as long as earlier HP readers.
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> There may be something to that. The only change I made was to go from 
> ambivilence about Sirius to disliking him. But I think part of it had 
> to do with all the discussions about Sirius vrs Severus. Honestly, 
> both men could have done more for Harry had they not had their own 
> flaws and issues to deal with.
>

Julie:
I think you hit the nail on the head. *Neither* Snape nor Sirius
are very likeable characters--nor is James--in the sense of being
noble or good-hearted (as, say, Neville is). All three of them
have rather substantial mean streaks. They aren't nice people, 
except to those very closest to them, and have little or no
tolerance for those they consider outside their personal circle
or clique. They are all three pretty self-centered, though to 
be fair James never really got far beyond boyhood so it's harder
to judge him fairly. (And while Remus is more kind-natured than
any of these three, he is self-centered for the most part, and
his continual failure to act, as in the Pensieve incident, rather
makes his kinder nature a moot point.)

Really, the question for me is not "Do you like Snape (or Sirius,
or James, or Remus), but which one(s) do you find easiest to 
forgive for their faults and mistakes? 

Like Kemper, I got into HP after GOF was out, and though I had
no knowledge of Snape or any other character beforehand, Snape
did grow on me as I read through the first four books, since he
was obviously (to me) on the "good" side despite his meanness.
But I also liked Sirius through the first four books, especially
in GOF when he acted as a supportive father-figure to Harry,
even if from a distance. It was OotP that soured me some on
Sirius, and not so much the Pensieve scene (which still stands
to me as a testament to the dislikeable characteristics of the
four Marauders in their completely unjustified treatment of
Severus). Rather it was Sirius the adult, who was unable to
provide any fatherly or godfatherly mentoring or support for
Harry whatsoever mired as he was in his own endless pity party.
Yet I still didn't hate him at the end of the book, but felt
sorry for him because he'd never had the opportunity to grow
up (thanks in part to his years in Azkaban). 

Although it usually comes down to whether you like (or dislike)
Snape or Sirius more, I don't personally think it's a contest
between them. They both were tragic characters who made bad
choices, choices that basically destroyed their lives, or 
at least made them miserable during a good period of their
shortened lifetimes. In both cases, it was a sad waste. 

Julie, who does admit to having more empathy for Snape and
can only guess that perhaps it is because he started out
the victimized, while Sirius started out the victimizer (as
I interpret the Pensieve scene).




From bleepnbooster at hotmail.com  Thu Jun 19 12:17:49 2008
From: bleepnbooster at hotmail.com (need_to_sleep_now)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:17:49 -0000
Subject: Ron and Parseltongue
Message-ID: <g3dipd+45if@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183297

Hello!

I apologise if this has already been discussed; I did a search but
found nothing that answered my question.

Something that grated a little on me when reading DH was when Hermione
explained how Ron has opened the CofS to obtain the basilsk fangs by
using Parseltongue.  I thought that you were either born with this
ability or not, it wasn't something that could just be copied.

Is there something I'm missing?

Fantastic site by the way; fantastic to get the more mature view on the
books!

bleepnbooster



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 19 14:48:05 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:48:05 -0000
Subject: Ron and Parseltongue
In-Reply-To: <g3dipd+45if@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3drj5+gh7g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183298

---  "need_to_sleep_now" <bleepnbooster at ...> wrote:
>
> Hello!
> 
> ...
> 
> Something that grated a little on me when reading DH was when
> Hermione explained how Ron has opened the CofS to obtain the
> basilsk fangs by using Parseltongue.  I thought that you were
> either born with this ability or not, it wasn't something that
> could just be copied.
> 
> Is there something I'm missing?
> 
> Fantastic site by the way; fantastic to get the more mature 
> view on the books!
> 
> bleepnbooster
>

bboyminn:

Actually this has been discussed, but I don't remember when.
Still, a simple enough question, so let me say this -

Once upon a time in a far away land called Japan, several
celebrities were periodically called upon to make TV
commercials for various products. Not speaking any Japanese
was no hinderence since the just learned their lines
phonetically, and in essense faked it.

It was one single word in parseltongue that Ron spoke -
'Open' and it took him several tries to get it right. 

I think we could all do that in pretty much any language
we didn't understand. Ron heard Harry speak the word 'open'
in parseltongue when Harry opened that bathroom entrance
to the Chamber of Secret and again, more recently, when
Harry opened the locket.

I don't think it would have been that hard for him to fake
it.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn 




From dongan51 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 19 13:11:15 2008
From: dongan51 at yahoo.com (Liz P)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 06:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron and Parseltongue
Message-ID: <668023.43817.qm@web63910.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183299

bleepnbooster:
Hello!

<snip>

Something that grated a little on me when reading DH was when Hermione 
explained how Ron has opened the CofS to obtain the basilsk fangs by 
using Parseltongue. I thought that you were either born with this 
ability or not, it wasn't something that could just be copied.

Is there something I'm missing?

<snip>
Liz:
I've always been a bit bothered by it myself. I assum though that to others they hear the hissing, so attempts can be made to reproduce the sounds without knowing what they are "saying".


 


      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Thu Jun 19 16:47:06 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:47:06 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron and Parseltongue
In-Reply-To: <g3dipd+45if@eGroups.com>
References: <g3dipd+45if@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806190947i3216d567ic2c5228ce0ffc114@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183300

This didn't bother me.  I'm a musician and I often sing in languages that I
don't understand. Its simply listening to how sounds are formed and
repeating them. No comprehension necessary!

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Thu Jun 19 20:39:41 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:39:41 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron and Parseltongue
References: <g3dipd+45if@eGroups.com> <43e41d1e0806190947i3216d567ic2c5228ce0ffc114@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005101c8d24c$9a5af9a0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 183301

> This didn't bother me.  I'm a musician and I often sing in languages that 
> I
> don't understand. Its simply listening to how sounds are formed and
> repeating them. No comprehension necessary!
>
> Lynda

Shelley now:
This works with people with an "ear" for sounds. Some people naturally can 
pick up foreign languages with surprising accuracy, and dialects too, 
because they are gifted at hearing how things sound and can replicate them 
with accuracy.

BUT, and here's the huge BUT with me- Ron had never demonstrated this gift 
before. So, I find it a bit unbelievable that he was able to copy the word 
that he had heard long ago (Harry wasn't there to tell it to him, and then 
have him repeat it immediately back, and then try a few times that way with 
someone who knew how it would sound correcting him as he got closer to 
saying it correctly- musicians often listen to a song several times to get 
all of it correct), and so I found this passage to be a bit of hokey 
Rowling-needs-a-quick-way-to-wrap-up-the-series stunt. People buy it because 
yeah, it's technically possible that he could have done this, but I find 
that she should have written something in the series earlier about Ron 
repeating a word in Mermaidish or other language that he heard to 
demonstrate that he had this gift first, so that it was more believable that 
he could do it for Parseltongue. There were plenty of times she could have 
shown this- at the World Cup, where many people were together speaking 
foreign languages, the TriWizard tournament (Dumbledore spoke Mermish, and 
understood the Merpeople), repeating Fleur's French accent, and so forth. I 
just find it hokey that Rowling gave Ron this gift last second to be able to 
wrap up the series.

Shelley





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 20 00:04:54 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:04:54 -0000
Subject: Ron and Parseltongue
In-Reply-To: <005101c8d24c$9a5af9a0$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <g3es76+sfbl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183302

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma"
<k12listmomma at ...> wrote:

> BUT, and here's the huge BUT with me - Ron had never demonstrated 
> this gift before. So, I find it a bit unbelievable that he was 
> able to copy the word that he had heard long ago 


Well, Ron *does* seem to have maybe not "a gift", but at least a
certain ability to imitate sounds. Remember how he managed to give "a
passable imitation" of Wormtail's voice in Malfoy cellar? Wormtail was
not even someone close to Ron, whose voice he could hear on a regular
basis, and still he imitated him convincingly. I'm not sure I could
have done this :-)! 

Also, even though Ron heard the word "open" last time some four month
before, it was under very memorable circumstances, so he could still
remember everything vividly. Besides, as Steve noted, Ron heard the
same word in CoS as well, and also under memorable circumstances. 

Ron also could have overheard Harry whispering "open" in Parseltongue
when Harry was trying  to open the Snitch at night (p.434 Am. ed.),
after he guessed that the ring was hidden inside it - this one is just
a speculation, of course :-).

In short, I find it reasonably believable that Ron could say "open" in
Parseltongue - after all, it's just one word, or rather, one hiss :-).



zanooda, who found a few much less believable things in DH ...




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Fri Jun 20 01:53:54 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:53:54 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron and Parseltongue
In-Reply-To: <005101c8d24c$9a5af9a0$6401a8c0@homemain>
References: <g3dipd+45if@eGroups.com>
	 <43e41d1e0806190947i3216d567ic2c5228ce0ffc114@mail.gmail.com>
	 <005101c8d24c$9a5af9a0$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806191853vc692cf5rec7414f1a9b1b723@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183303

BUT, and here's the huge BUT with me- Ron had never demonstrated this gift
before. So, I find it a bit unbelievable that he was able to copy the word
that he had heard long ago

---------------------------------------

He did mimic Hermione at times, with what Harry thought was incredible
accuracy.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 20 02:36:17 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:36:17 -0000
Subject: Ron and Parseltongue
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806191853vc692cf5rec7414f1a9b1b723@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g3f531+5mu6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183304

---  "Lynda Cordova" <sweenlit at ...> wrote:
>
> BUT, and here's the huge BUT with me- Ron had never 
> demonstrated this gift before. So, I find it a bit 
> unbelievable that he was able to copy the word that he 
> had heard long ago
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> He did mimic Hermione at times, with what Harry thought was
> incredible accuracy.
> 
> Lynda

bboyminn:

Just one small flaw in this thinking. It assumes that Ron 
heard Harry say 'open' in parseltongue twice and never gave 
it another thought. 

But, it is equally possible that he dwelt on it, pondering 
how it sounded and might have even curiously tried to mimic 
it a time or two; of course, in a very casual way.

Now when the chips are down, that background pondering 
paid off, and with several failed attempts, he finally
managed a passable 'open' in parseltongue. It didn't even
have to be a good 'open', just a barely passable one. 

Too many people are assuming that Ron now suddenly has the
gift of speaking parseltongue, but that is simply not true.
He just by the barest margin and with great effort managed 
to squeak out one passable word by mimicry.

Steve/bboyminn




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 20 06:16:29 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:16:29 -0000
Subject: Ron and Parseltongue
In-Reply-To: <g3f531+5mu6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3fhvt+4gen@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183305

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "Lynda Cordova" <sweenlit@> wrote:
> >
> > BUT, and here's the huge BUT with me- Ron had never 
> > demonstrated this gift before. So, I find it a bit 
> > unbelievable that he was able to copy the word that he 
> > had heard long ago


> bboyminn:
> 
> Just one small flaw in this thinking. It assumes that Ron 
> heard Harry say 'open' in parseltongue twice and never gave 
> it another thought. 
> 
> But, it is equally possible that he dwelt on it, pondering 
> how it sounded and might have even curiously tried to mimic 
> it a time or two; of course, in a very casual way.
> 
> Now when the chips are down, that background pondering 
> paid off, and with several failed attempts, he finally
> managed a passable 'open' in parseltongue. It didn't even
> have to be a good 'open', just a barely passable one. 
> 
> Too many people are assuming that Ron now suddenly has the
> gift of speaking parseltongue, but that is simply not true.
> He just by the barest margin and with great effort managed 
> to squeak out one passable word by mimicry.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn

Montavilla47:
Of course, we also don't know that "open" is a one-word
command in Parseltongue, either.  It might require any
number of different syllables and sounds.

Ron's kind of an amazing guy, when you think about it.
He's got a killer talent for Wizard Chess in one year, then
hardly ever plays again.  Then he goes from being barely
adequate as a Quidditch Keeper to winning the big game
to barely adequate again to winning the big game again.

And then he develops this amazing gift for mimicry!

(Anyone else get the feeling that Ron's been imitating
Harry behind his back all these years?)

:)





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Jun 20 16:00:11 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:00:11 -0000
Subject: Ron and Parseltongue
In-Reply-To: <g3fhvt+4gen@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3gk6b+642n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183306

> 
> Montavilla47:
> Of course, we also don't know that "open" is a one-word
> command in Parseltongue, either.  It might require any
> number of different syllables and sounds.


Pippin:
It's "a hiss and a snarl" (DH 19) or alternatively, "a horrible
strangled hissing noise" (DH 31), though possibly Ron's attempt to
imitate himself is inaccurate, or Harry would have heard him saying
"open."  Ron is also able to recall "Gamp's Law of Elemental
Transfiguration", though he told Hermione to "speak English" the only
time she mentioned it.

Montavilla:
> Ron's kind of an amazing guy, when you think about it.
> He's got a killer talent for Wizard Chess in one year, then
> hardly ever plays again.  Then he goes from being barely
> adequate as a Quidditch Keeper to winning the big game
> to barely adequate again to winning the big game again.

Pipin:
Ron plays chess reasonably often in the first five books. Who can
forget the threat to Harry's quivering castle at the end of OOP?

 But no one had  much time to play  in HBP, and Hermione apparently
didn't think to pack either chess or gobstones in her magic bag in DH.
Too bad, it would have made all that downtime much more bearable. But
it's just like her <g>. So is polishing a sword that doesn't need
polishing -- she did give Harry a broomstick polishing kit as a
present once.

As for Ron's recurring confidence problems, what is so amazing about
that? Anybody who's ever had confidence problems or any other kind of
emotional hangup could tell you that beating  it once doesn't mean
it's gone forever. 

Pippin







From sweenlit at gmail.com  Fri Jun 20 18:15:56 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:15:56 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron and Parseltongue
In-Reply-To: <g3gk6b+642n@eGroups.com>
References: <g3fhvt+4gen@eGroups.com> <g3gk6b+642n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806201115j30be23cfk95c7fc9a88457e@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183307

As for Ron's recurring confidence problems, what is so amazing about
that? Anybody who's ever had confidence problems or any other kind of
emotional hangup could tell you that beating it once doesn't mean
it's gone forever.

-------------------------

No. In fact, they're nearly garanteed to return again--stronger than they
were before, in fact.  That's the thing about emotional hangups. They like
to stick around.

Besdes all this, I don't know that Ron didn't play chess every day or every
week. Just because the text does not mention it, doesn't mean it isn't a
possibility the author considered or that I, as a reader, can consider.  If
so, I would come to the conclusion that Harry did not bathe, use the
restroom or sleep on a regular basis. None of which has ever entered my head
and all of which, if detailed would make for one of the most boring series
of fictional books ever written.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 20 18:36:18 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:36:18 -0000
Subject: Ron and Parseltongue
In-Reply-To: <g3es76+sfbl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3gtb2+qc6k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183308

zanooda wrote: 
> Well, Ron *does* seem to have maybe not "a gift", but at least a
certain ability to imitate sounds. Remember how he managed to give "a
passable imitation" of Wormtail's voice in Malfoy cellar? Wormtail was
not even someone close to Ron, whose voice he could hear on a regular
basis, and still he imitated him convincingly. I'm not sure I could
have done this :-)! 
> 
> Also, even though Ron heard the word "open" last time some four
month before, it was under very memorable circumstances, so he could
still remember everything vividly. Besides, as Steve noted, Ron heard
the same word in CoS as well, and also under memorable circumstances. 
>
Carol responds:

I agree with your reasoning and examples. I'd just like to add that
the Weasley kids in general seem to have something of a gift for
mimicry. Ginny startles the kids at the initial DA meeting in the
Hog's Head with her "hem! hem!" Evidently she sounds so much like
Umbridge that for a moment they believe that Umbridge is actually
there. I seem to recall various Weasleys imitating Percy and their
mother, as well.

Carol, wishing that she had time to look up specific examples




From martyman at ptd.net  Fri Jun 20 13:15:01 2008
From: martyman at ptd.net (Martin Bielawski)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:15:01 -0400
Subject: Epilogue (was Re:  Ron and Parseltongue)
References: <g3dipd+45if@eGroups.com> <43e41d1e0806190947i3216d567ic2c5228ce0ffc114@mail.gmail.com> <005101c8d24c$9a5af9a0$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <00bf01c8d2d7$a5ae6310$deb4f09f@geisinger.edu>

No: HPFGUIDX 183309

> Shelley:
> I just find it hokey that Rowling gave Ron this gift last 
> second to be able to wrap up the series.

mbielawski:
I agree that the last part of DH seemed that Rowling was 
rushing to tie up loose ends.

Just an opinion...



From sweenlit at gmail.com  Sat Jun 21 05:06:45 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:06:45 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <00bf01c8d2d7$a5ae6310$deb4f09f@geisinger.edu>
References: <g3dipd+45if@eGroups.com>
	 <43e41d1e0806190947i3216d567ic2c5228ce0ffc114@mail.gmail.com>
	 <005101c8d24c$9a5af9a0$6401a8c0@homemain>
	 <00bf01c8d2d7$a5ae6310$deb4f09f@geisinger.edu>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806202206h18336876u652f2d8feba4fc7b@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183310

>
>  Shelley:
> > I just find it hokey that Rowling gave Ron this gift last
> > second to be able to wrap up the series.
>

     Lynda:
      I never thought of it as being a "last minute gift" of Ron's. She'd
already established that the Weasley kids, Ron included have mimicry gifts.
And even the non-language gifted among people (me included) can repeat
limited sounds to make a passable attempt at another language (believe me I
know--I sang Habanera this year in my community choir--no French speaker
would have been able to decipher my words but the audience gushed at how
well the choir did--no I was not the soloist).
      Its all a matter of what you choose to believe--did Rowling simply add
stuff on to finish the series, or did she simply choose not to include what
seemed to her to be unnecessary examples of what some of her characters
gifts were until later in the series or only in limited fashion until the
end of the series. I think she chose the latter, and I understand why. It
kept the series moving in a forward direction and did not cause it to be
bogged down with a lot of extra stuff!

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 21 12:48:11 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:48:11 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806202206h18336876u652f2d8feba4fc7b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g3itab+27vl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183311

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" <sweenlit at ...>
wrote:
>
> >
> >  Shelley:
> > > I just find it hokey that Rowling gave Ron this gift last
> > > second to be able to wrap up the series.
> >
> 
> Lynda:
> I never thought of it as being a "last minute gift" of Ron's.
> She'd already established that the Weasley kids, Ron included
> have mimicry gifts.
>
> ... 
>
> It kept the series moving in a forward direction and did 
> not cause it to be bogged down with a lot of extra stuff!
> 
> Lynda

bboyminn:

First I object again to the idea that Ron has been given a
'Gift'. Ron can't speak or understand parseltongue, and the
books seemed to make that clear. He simply mimicked one 
word that he had heard a couple of times. Further, it took
him several tried to accomplish that one word. 

In addition, as Lynda points out, in the previous books JKR
had room to move. Notice that the book at the center of the
series is the largest book. But as she moves toward the end,
she has to narrow her focus and concentrate on the ending.

So, in the final book, I think she fixed her eyes on the
goal line, and plowed straight toward it. No time for 
any diversions that didn't serve the plot. She did try to 
tie up loose ends, but again, any loose ends that didn't 
serve the immediate plot got lost. Which is why 'Good
Slytherin', House Unity, and many others were not completely
resolved. 

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Jun 21 14:59:01 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:59:01 -0000
Subject: Loose Ends,  (was Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3itab+27vl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3j4vl+qojm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183312

 
> bboyminn:
 
> So, in the final book, I think she fixed her eyes on the
> goal line, and plowed straight toward it. No time for 
> any diversions that didn't serve the plot. She did try to 
> tie up loose ends, but again, any loose ends that didn't 
> serve the immediate plot got lost. Which is why 'Good
> Slytherin', House Unity, and many others were not completely
> resolved. 


Potioncat:
The Good Slytherin wasn't one of JKR's threads, it was all ours. If I 
had time, I'd go back to look for his (or her) origin. It had to do 
with an expected reversal of image. As I imagined the Good Slytherin, 
his purpose was to show Harry and the reader that stereotypes aren't 
necessarily true. I thought Theo Nott would be The Good Slyhterin. 
<sigh>  

The House Unity idea came from one of the Sorting Hat's songs and it 
was dealt with in DH. Lord Voldmort's plan was to unify the houses-- 
to make everyone Slytherin. So obviously, house unity was a bad idea 
and must have come from the bits that Salazar put into the Sorting 
Hat.

JKR seems to think that Gryffindors are best and the rest of us 
better get used to it.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jun 21 16:48:36 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:48:36 -0000
Subject: Loose Ends,  (was Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3j4vl+qojm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3jbd4+qmto@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183313

> 
> Potioncat:
> The Good Slytherin wasn't one of JKR's threads, it was all ours. If
I  had time, I'd go back to look for his (or her) origin. It had to do 
with an expected reversal of image. As I imagined the Good Slytherin, 
his purpose was to show Harry and the reader that stereotypes aren't 
necessarily true. I thought Theo Nott would be The Good Slyhterin. 
> <sigh>  

Pippin:
Trouble is, a reversed negative stereotype is still a stereotype. It's
still a preconceived image, and it's demeaning. It's  a message about
how members of a certain group should behave which other groups are
presumed not to need. Nobody thinks JKR let us down by not showing us
a Good Ravenclaw or a Good Hufflepuff, right? 

If we had a Good Slytherin, then we'd be dividing Slytherins into Good
Slytherins and Bad Slytherins, and I'd hate to think that's what JKR
wants us to do when real groups are being criticized. If all the
Slytherins (or the Muggles) are bad in a certain way, it's because all
humanity is bad in that way -- all of us are prejudiced, all of us
look dumb to Insiders, and all of us are cowards when we've lost faith.

 Honestly, if the whole of canon doesn't convey the idea that
stereotypes  are an obstacle to understanding, I don't know what would.


Potioncat: 
> The House Unity idea came from one of the Sorting Hat's songs and it 
> was dealt with in DH. Lord Voldmort's plan was to unify the houses-- 
> to make everyone Slytherin. So obviously, house unity was a bad idea 
> and must have come from the bits that Salazar put into the Sorting 
> Hat.

Pippin:

 What Hermione said in OOP was  "I think it's a pity we're not trying
for a bit of inter-House unity" and by the epilogue Harry, Ron and
Ginny seem to agree with her.  *Forced* unity, as Voldemort would have
had it, is wrong. Unity that comes from peaceful cooperation by choice
is worth  trying for. 

Our mistake was in assuming that Harry would have to solve all the
problems of the wizarding world to get rid of Voldemort. But he
didn't. He had to work with things as they were, with a House-elf who
wanted to be a slave and with Slytherins who never stopped believing
that pure blood makes you superior.

Potioncat: 
> JKR seems to think that Gryffindors are best and the rest of us 
> better get used to it.

Pippin:
She thinks that the Gryffindor *ideal* is best. But canon shows that
Gryffindors have just as much trouble  living up to their ideals as
other people, and are  just as wrong as Voldemort if they try to
impose their ideals by force.

Pippin





From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sat Jun 21 17:01:10 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:01:10 -0000
Subject: Loose Ends,  (was Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3jbd4+qmto@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3jc4m+l4l3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183314


> Potioncat:
> The Good Slytherin wasn't one of JKR's threads, it was all ours. If
> I  had time, I'd go back to look for his (or her) origin. It had to do 
> with an expected reversal of image. As I imagined the Good Slytherin, 
> his purpose was to show Harry and the reader that stereotypes aren't 
> necessarily true. I thought Theo Nott would be The Good Slyhterin. 
> > <sigh>  
> 
> Pippin:
> Trouble is, a reversed negative stereotype is still a stereotype. It's
> still a preconceived image, and it's demeaning. It's  a message about
> how members of a certain group should behave which other groups are
> presumed not to need. Nobody thinks JKR let us down by not showing us
> a Good Ravenclaw or a Good Hufflepuff, right? 

Kemper now:
Perhaps I don't understand your question...
We see a Good Ravenclaw (and a bad with Marietta).  We see only good
Hufflepuff kids.  We see Good Gryffindor (and bad, or at least very
creepy, with McLaggen).

But nobody complains about the absence of a bad Hufflepuff.
Because there are none!  Hufflepuffs rule!!!

Kemper




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 21 17:32:45 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:32:45 -0000
Subject: Loose Ends,  (was Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3jc4m+l4l3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3jdvt+hc6c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183315

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" <iam.kemper at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > Potioncat:
> > The Good Slytherin wasn't one of JKR's threads, it was all ours. If
> > I  had time, I'd go back to look for his (or her) origin. It had to do 
> > with an expected reversal of image. As I imagined the Good Slytherin, 
> > his purpose was to show Harry and the reader that stereotypes aren't 
> > necessarily true. I thought Theo Nott would be The Good Slyhterin. 
> > > <sigh>  
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > Trouble is, a reversed negative stereotype is still a stereotype. It's
> > still a preconceived image, and it's demeaning. It's  a message about
> > how members of a certain group should behave which other groups are
> > presumed not to need. Nobody thinks JKR let us down by not showing us
> > a Good Ravenclaw or a Good Hufflepuff, right? 
> 
> Kemper now:
> Perhaps I don't understand your question...
> We see a Good Ravenclaw (and a bad with Marietta).  We see only good
> Hufflepuff kids.  We see Good Gryffindor (and bad, or at least very
> creepy, with McLaggen).
> 
> But nobody complains about the absence of a bad Hufflepuff.
> Because there are none!  Hufflepuffs rule!!!
> 
> Kemper
>

Montavilla47:

Zacharias Smith was the bad Hufflepuff.  




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sat Jun 21 17:37:19 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:37:19 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
References: <g3dipd+45if@eGroups.com> <43e41d1e0806190947i3216d567ic2c5228ce0ffc114@mail.gmail.com> <005101c8d24c$9a5af9a0$6401a8c0@homemain> <00bf01c8d2d7$a5ae6310$deb4f09f@geisinger.edu> <43e41d1e0806202206h18336876u652f2d8feba4fc7b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00d101c8d3c5$76ace700$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 183316

>>  Shelley:
>> > I just find it hokey that Rowling gave Ron this gift last
>> > second to be able to wrap up the series.
>>
>
>     Lynda:
>      I never thought of it as being a "last minute gift" of Ron's. She'd
> already established that the Weasley kids, Ron included have mimicry 
> gifts.
> And even the non-language gifted among people (me included) can repeat
> limited sounds to make a passable attempt at another language (believe me 
> I
> know--I sang Habanera this year in my community choir--no French speaker
> would have been able to decipher my words but the audience gushed at how
> well the choir did--no I was not the soloist).
>      Its all a matter of what you choose to believe--did Rowling simply 
> add
> stuff on to finish the series, or did she simply choose not to include 
> what
> seemed to her to be unnecessary examples of what some of her characters
> gifts were until later in the series or only in limited fashion until the
> end of the series. I think she chose the latter, and I understand why. It
> kept the series moving in a forward direction and did not cause it to be
> bogged down with a lot of extra stuff!
>
> Lynda

Shelley:
No, I don't think it's a matter of Rowling PURPOSELY CHOOSING not to include 
examples earlier as not to clutter up the series- no, rather I think that 
it's a matter that she hadn't planned out the ending fully in her mind. 
Thus, she could not have included examples earlier. Or that she didn't think 
of all the sub-plots out in her mind to fluidly resolve them all. This is 
where she could have really used her fans- they had extensively put together 
lists of plots and subplots that needed to be resolved for the series to be 
complete, and I really think that if she had read them, and reread her 
series, that the ending would have flowed a lot more better.

For Pete's sake, "extra stuff" is not whole chapters on another character- 
often it's just one line different here, another line different there, and 
maybe an extra paragraph. She knew that the fans were fanatics about detail, 
it's just a shame that at this point in the series, that she wasn't as well. 
I just don't get the purposeful imagining that goes on in the minds of some 
readers to explain away what Rowling didn't write (that Ron meditated on 
Harry's Parceltongue words four months earlier? HUH??? Ron had no interest 
to learn Parceltongue, that evil language of the Slytherin's that was 
explained to be not a very common gift, nor a good sign to everyone around 
them, and so suddenly Ron is supposed to admire this gift enough to want to 
try and replicate it? Not buying it....) I just think that some fans are so 
in love with Rowling that they will explain away any flaw she has in her 
writing, rather than just admit that they are there. I love the woman and 
her writing, but the flaws just drive me nuts.

Shelley 




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sat Jun 21 17:45:35 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:45:35 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
References: <g3itab+27vl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00d601c8d3c6$9dac01a0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 183317

> bboyminn:
<snip>
> So, in the final book, I think she fixed her eyes on the
> goal line, and plowed straight toward it. No time for
> any diversions that didn't serve the plot. She did try to
> tie up loose ends, but again, any loose ends that didn't
> serve the immediate plot got lost. Which is why 'Good
> Slytherin', House Unity, and many others were not completely
> resolved.
>
> Just a few thoughts.
>
> Steve/bboyminn

Shelley:
Yes, I agree with this analysis, and that it way I think this last book 
suffers so. She is looking for a Harry-resolution, not really a full series 
resolution. I just think it would have been so much better if she had, after 
she had finished writing DH, set it down, and reread her entire series 
straight through, catching all that needed to be wrapped up, and then looked 
for ways to add a paragraph here, and extra line there, to tidy up the last 
book.

I know it's speculation, but I wonder if she will ever re-write the series, 
correcting all the annoying school always starts on a Monday (never mind 
that on a calendar it's impossible for her Monday's and dates to line up), 
the full moon inconsistency, room placements and other mistakes of the 
series. I wonder if she really considers the work to be "in stone" and never 
to be changed or adjusted again. I would love to read the series again that 
has small adjustments to it to make the series flow as one unit, instead of 
as separate concentrated bursts of inspiration.

Shelley 




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sat Jun 21 18:27:28 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:27:28 -0000
Subject: Loose Ends,  (was Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3jdvt+hc6c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3jh6g+ea97@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183318


> > Kemper:
> > But nobody complains about the absence of a bad Hufflepuff.

> Montavilla47:
> Zacharias Smith was the bad Hufflepuff.

Kemper now:
He wasn't liked for bad reasons.
McLaggen is creepy.  Marietta's a traitor.
What's wrong with Zach?






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jun 21 18:34:10 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:34:10 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <00d101c8d3c5$76ace700$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <g3jhj2+geuc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183319

Shelley:
> where she could have really used her fans- they had extensively put
together  lists of plots and subplots that needed to be resolved for
the series to be  complete, and I really think that if she had read
them, and reread her  series, that the ending would have flowed a lot
more better.

Pippin:
I co-wrote one of those lists and allowing for red herrings (aka my
Lupin obsession) and some  minor plot threads that JKR admitted to
dropping (Florian Fortescue, the person who does magic later in life)
I think most things were resolved. But you can see for yourself. 

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-the-list.html

The answer to "Will the Houses unite" is in DH, for example, it just
wasn't the answer a lot of readers thought they would hear. But we
found out what happened to Norbert(a) and who had Sirius's bike. 

Plot twists in DH  like James not having fought Voldemort I simply
don't believe are errors -- James is famous partly for something that
he didn't do, and that's not an issue for Harry for obvious reasons.

Kemper now:
Perhaps I don't understand your question...
We see a Good Ravenclaw (and a bad with Marietta). We see only good
Hufflepuff kids. We see Good Gryffindor (and bad, or at least very
creepy, with McLaggen).

Pippin:
There aren't any Ravenclaws or Hufflepuffs that Harry wants to get
matey with, once he's dropped Cho. If getting matey with Harry is the
definition of a Good Slytherin, there aren't any Good Ravenclaws or
Good Hufflepuffs either. 

Shelley:

 Ron had no interest  to learn Parceltongue, that evil language of the
Slytherin's that was  explained to be not a very common gift, nor a
good sign to everyone around  them, and so suddenly Ron is supposed to
admire this gift enough to want to  try and replicate it? 

Pippin:
Did you miss Dumbledore explaining that there are also Parselmouths
among the great and good? Or is Ron supposed not to have noticed that
knowing parseltongue didn't make Harry evil? Parseltongue enabled
Harry to destroy the locket and to rescue Ginny from the Chamber (and
wouldn't Ron and Harry have retold that story to Hermione and Ginny,
complete with sound effects?)

 There may be fans whose love for Rowling inspires them to defend her
more than she deserves. I think there are also fans (or ex-fans) whose
dislike for the way the story ended inspires them to find ever more
reasons not to like it, not all of which I find compelling.

Pippin






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 21 18:42:09 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:42:09 -0000
Subject: Ron and Parseltongue
In-Reply-To: <g3gtb2+qc6k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3ji21+bgkp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183320

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> I'd just like to add that the Weasley kids in general seem to 
> have something of a gift for mimicry. Ginny startles the kids 
> at the initial DA meeting in the Hog's Head with her "hem! hem!" 
> Evidently she sounds so much like Umbridge that for a moment they 
> believe that Umbridge is actually there. I seem to recall various 
> Weasleys imitating Percy and their mother, as well.
 
> Carol, wishing that she had time to look up specific examples


Hmm, I can only remember Ron imitating the sound of the hooves to scare 
Umbridge at the end of OotP, and maybe George imitating Percy in 
DH: "Well, we do look to our prefects ..." etc. :-). There were also 
other cases, but they are not exactly sound imitations - for example in 
HBP, when Ginny does imitations of Ron and Harry at a Quidditch 
practice ("Sectumsempra"), or Lynda's example of Ron doing "a cruel but 
accurate impression" of Hermione in Transfiguration. Maybe you are 
right and there are more, I just can't remember right now.


zanooda, who also doesn't have time to look through the books for more 
examples :-)





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 21 19:47:05 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:47:05 -0000
Subject: Ron and Parseltongue
In-Reply-To: <g3dipd+45if@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3jlrp+vmgr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183321

> bleepnbooster:
> Something that grated a little on me when reading DH was when Hermione
> explained how Ron has opened the CofS to obtain the basilsk fangs by
> using Parseltongue.  I thought that you were either born with this
> ability or not, it wasn't something that could just be copied.

Zara:
Responding more to this thread as a whole, I felt that the plausibility 
of Ron's use of Parseltongue was well-established within DH itself. He 
is not suddenly a parselmouth - he merely imitates the sound of the 
word for "Open". Ron's ability to mimic voices is brought up in the 
book, and Ron receives a refresher in how "Open" sounds, when Harry 
uses it to open the locket in "The Silver Doe".





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Jun 21 20:01:25 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:01:25 -0000
Subject: Loose Ends,  (was Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3jc4m+l4l3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3jmml+32ci@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183322

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" <iam.kemper at ...> wrote:

Pippin:
> > Nobody thinks JKR let us down by not showing us
> > a Good Ravenclaw or a Good Hufflepuff, right? 
 
Kemper:
> Perhaps I don't understand your question...
> We see a Good Ravenclaw (and a bad with Marietta).  We see only good
> Hufflepuff kids.  We see Good Gryffindor (and bad, or at least very
> creepy, with McLaggen).

Geoff:
But we /do/ have a bad Gryffindor. Peter Pettigrew. OK, not the same 
generation, but they do exist.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Jun 21 21:07:42 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:07:42 -0000
Subject: Loose Ends,  (was Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3jbd4+qmto@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3jqiu+jnpk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183323

 
> Pippin:
> Trouble is, a reversed negative stereotype is still a stereotype. 
It's
> still a preconceived image, and it's demeaning. It's  a message 
about
> how members of a certain group should behave which other groups are
> presumed not to need. Nobody thinks JKR let us down by not showing 
us
> a Good Ravenclaw or a Good Hufflepuff, right? 

Potioncat:
But she also didn't set them up as something. Well, actually she did. 
She set poor Hufflepuff up as duffers--then gave us Cedric. Who 
promptly turned around and got himself killed.


>Pippin: 
> If we had a Good Slytherin, then we'd be dividing Slytherins into 
Good
> Slytherins and Bad Slytherins, and I'd hate to think that's what JKR
> wants us to do when real groups are being criticized. If all the
> Slytherins (or the Muggles) are bad in a certain way, it's because 
all
> humanity is bad in that way -- all of us are prejudiced, all of us
> look dumb to Insiders, and all of us are cowards when we've lost 
faith.

Potioncat:
But there are good kids and bad kids. Look around any high school for 
a while and you'll see it. The trouble comes if the perception is 
that all the bad kids come from one subset of the students. Now, if 
kids from each subset are good or bad, that's different and that's 
what I expected to see in Slytherin. 

I don't see it as a loose thread so much, as a jolt. The other houses 
seem to be a fairly normal mix of 'character', but Slytherin is so 
very bad.


> Pippin:
>  Honestly, if the whole of canon doesn't convey the idea that
> stereotypes  are an obstacle to understanding, I don't know what 
would.

Potioncat:
And my favorite canon moment that sort of shows this is when Severus 
tells Lily he didn't mean to call "her" a Mudblood. (Obviously, she's 
different from the others.)


In Post 183322 Geoff wrote:
> But we /do/ have a bad Gryffindor. Peter Pettigrew. OK, not the 
same 
> generation, but they do exist.
>

Potioncat:
This is a better approach than what I started. We get to see 
Gryffindor, warts and all. Some of us are pretty upset at how badly 
this House can behave, but it's realistic. There should be good and 
bad, smart and stupid, hard-workers and lazy bums in each House. 

All we saw of Slytherin was bad kids. Many of us expected to see some 
good kids--at least one good Slytherin--some time in the story. 





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun 21 22:05:18 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:05:18 -0000
Subject: Loose Ends,  (was Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3jbd4+qmto@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3jtuu+dn49@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183324

> Pippin:
> Trouble is, a reversed negative stereotype is still a stereotype. 
It's
> still a preconceived image, and it's demeaning. It's  a message 
about
> how members of a certain group should behave which other groups are
> presumed not to need. Nobody thinks JKR let us down by not showing 
us
> a Good Ravenclaw or a Good Hufflepuff, right? 

Magpie:
I'm glad we didn't get A good Slytherin, though I don't see what 
would be demeaning about us judging Slytherins on whether they're 
good or bad rather than assuming Slytherin=bad like it does now. Of 
course Slytherin needs improvements in their behavior that other 
houses don't need. That's made clear in every book.

However, I'm not sure what you mean about the Good Hufflepuff and 
Ravenclaw. Those two houses, like Gryffindor, are made up of normal 
people. They can produce bad people (Marietta or Peter) but on the 
whole they're fairly good people and many actively join with Harry in 
the fight against Voldemort. 

Pippin: 
If all the
> Slytherins (or the Muggles) are bad in a certain way, it's because 
all
> humanity is bad in that way -- all of us are prejudiced, all of us
> look dumb to Insiders, and all of us are cowards when we've lost 
faith.

Magpie:
I don't see at all where JKR is making the point about "all of us"--
certainly not all of her heroes--being like Slytherins. The heroes 
aren't cowards when they lose faith that I remember.

Pippin:
> 
>  Honestly, if the whole of canon doesn't convey the idea that
> stereotypes  are an obstacle to understanding, I don't know what 
would.

Magpie:
I can think of plenty of things that would convey it more, given that 
this particular story uses stereotypes all the time that wind up 
being true and handy ways of understanding how people are going to 
act. There are some times where people are judged wrongly based on 
who they are, but I would never say that the theme of these books is 
about steroetypes being obstacles of understanding. Understanding in 
general was one of those red herrings.

> Pippin:
> 
>  What Hermione said in OOP was  "I think it's a pity we're not 
trying
> for a bit of inter-House unity" and by the epilogue Harry, Ron and
> Ginny seem to agree with her.  *Forced* unity, as Voldemort would 
have
> had it, is wrong. Unity that comes from peaceful cooperation by 
choice
> is worth  trying for. 

Magpie:
They have the same inter-House unity they had before. Ravenclaw, 
Hufflepuff and Gryffindor are unified in ways Slytherin is not 
unified with them.

Pippin: 
> Our mistake was in assuming that Harry would have to solve all the
> problems of the wizarding world to get rid of Voldemort. But he
> didn't.
 He had to work with things as they were, with a House-elf who
> wanted to be a slave and with Slytherins who never stopped believing
> that pure blood makes you superior.

Magpie:
I'd say my mistake was thinking that getting rid of Voldemort would 
require trying to solve any of the problems in the WW. It wasn't that 
Harry had to work with the way things were so much that there was no 
need to do otherwise and he never particularly had the desire to do 
so either. It really was just about getting rid of Voldemort.
 
-m




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jun 21 22:55:07 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:55:07 -0000
Subject: Loose Ends,  (was Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3jqiu+jnpk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3k0sb+ntfg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183325

> > Pippin:
> > Trouble is, a reversed negative stereotype is still a stereotype. 
> It's still a preconceived image, and it's demeaning. It's  a message 
> about how members of a certain group should behave which other
groups are presumed not to need. Nobody thinks JKR let us down by not
showing  us a Good Ravenclaw or a Good Hufflepuff, right? 
> 
> Potioncat:
> But she also didn't set them up as something. Well, actually she did. 
> She set poor Hufflepuff up as duffers--then gave us Cedric. Who 
> promptly turned around and got himself killed.

Pippin:
She set up the Ravenclaws in OOP.
--
A line of fourth-year Ravenclaws was crossing the entrance hall; they
caught sight of Harry and hurried to form a tighter group, as though
frightened he might attack stragglers.

"Yeah, we really ought to be trying to make friends with people like
that," said Harry sarcastically, -OOP ch 12.
--
Harry eventually befriends Luna -- but he never thinks of her as a
Good Ravenclaw, or proof that not all Ravenclaws are like the ones who
were afraid of him, or, heaven forfend, a model of what a decent
Ravenclaw should be like. 

The same with Cedric. Dumbledore says that Cedric represents the 
qualities that distinguish Hufflepuff House, but they're qualities
that anyone would like to have. Cedric valued loyalty, hard work and
fair play.  As did Snape and Regulus, and even Draco, though Draco's
perception of what's fair is  skewed by his belief that purebloods
deserve the best of everything, as Snape's is skewed by his longing
for revenge on James.


> Potioncat:
> But there are good kids and bad kids. Look around any high school
for a while and you'll see it. The trouble comes if the perception is 
> that all the bad kids come from one subset of the students. Now, if 
> kids from each subset are good or bad, that's different and that's 
> what I expected to see in Slytherin. 

Pippin:
But you'd only see it if you were disposed to be fair and if your
experiences lent themselves to a fair assessment. They might not, if
there was a subgroup of a group of kids who made it their mission to
make life unpleasant for you, and a subgroup of adults, formerly
members of that group, who were trying to kill you. Canon shows us
exactly what that's like.

We know that  Harry  can be  unfair and not realize it. There's a
subgroup of Slytherins who tried to make things bad for Harry and a
subgroup of former Slytherins who tried to kill him. We know that
the narrator does not give us a fair or inclusive picture of Muggles,
and this is never corrected. 

Under those circumstances, should we expect either the
narrator's or Harry's experience of Slytherin to be "realistic" ie,
reflective of what we assume to be the fictional reality of JKR's
world? Isn't it more realistic that it wouldn't be? 

Pippin





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Jun 22 01:11:13 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:11:13 -0000
Subject: Severus as friend / the story card / The Good Hufflepuff
Message-ID: <g3k8rh+5h0n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183326

Potioncat wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183282>:

<< Several have posted that they would have wanted Severus as a
friend, but he might not choose them. I don't think so. Young Severus
was desperate for friends. I think he would have responded to gestures
of friendship, particularly where the interests were similar. >>

Do you mean before he went to Hogwarts, or at Hogwarts? I believe that
before he went to Hogwarts, he was indeed desperate for friends, and I
suppose he would have sought the friendship of the first child he saw
using magic no matter how ugly or whatever that child was, but would
he have accepted overtures of friendships from a Muggle? He already
despised Muggles. He sought the friendship of super-duper Lily and
tried to take her away from Petunia rather than trying to be friendly
with both. To me it seems he would have rebuffed Petunia and continued
trying to drive her away from Lily even if Petunia had tried to be
friendly with him. Once he was friends with Lily, would he have
deigned to accept overtures of friendship from another wizarding child
who was less beautiful and intelligent and magically powerful than Lily?

Once at Hogwarts, it seems to me that he had all the friends he
needed: a couple of the more intelligent (altho' not more moral)
Slytherin House mates and super-duper Lily. 

Montavilla47 wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183286>:

<<So, let's discuss it. What did people think about the story? >>

Okay, here's what I wrote on OT: My impression while I read it was
that the [guys on broomsticks were] DEs [who ]were after some witch
or wizard who lived up that alley, and the cocky teens were there to
ambush the DEs and save the person whom they were after. They should
have captured the DEs and brought them to be arrested instead of just
leaving them.

Of course, my impression may have been biased by the experience that I
wrote a fanfic some years ago in which all four boys plus Lily
ambushed the DEs who were coming to kill a wizarding family. In MY
fic, they captured all the bad guys (except Lucius Malfoy got away
with singed hair) and they noticed that one of the bad guys was really
a good guy under Imperius, so they lifted the spell off him and sent
him to Hogwarts to get private lessons in DADA from Sukey Longbottom
(Augusta's daughter, but at the time I didn't know her name was Augusta).

In both cases, they were sent to intercept the planned attack because
one of Dumbledore's spies had warned Dumbledore of the plan.

[I]t never occurred to me that [Wilberforce, Bathsheba, and Elvendork]
were supposed to be the names of the people they were chasing. I
immediately assumed, and still believe, that they were just random
annoying names that James spouted off to sass the 'please-man'. Look
at the way he volunteered that 'Elvendork' is a name that can be used
for a boy or a girl. He wouldn't have said that if he was thinking
'those blokes' instead of thinking 'silly names'. And he repeated at
the end that Elvendork is a unisex name. That shows that he was
impressed with his (juvenile) wit at making up such a name.

Pippin wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183313>:

<< Nobody thinks JKR let us down by not showing us a Good Ravenclaw or
a Good Hufflepuff, right? >>

Because she did. Ernie Macmillan, who seems rather pompous, but
apologizes to Harry when appropriate, shakes hands with Harry, asserts
his trust in Harry, is her archetypal Good Hufflepuff. I would have
preferred her to make Justin Finch-Fletchley and Susan Bones the Good
Hufflepuffs because I took a liking to them.

Luna Lovegood is her Good Ravenclaw, which is not too nice to
Ravenclaw House, considering how mean the rest of the House it to her.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Jun 22 11:06:45 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:06:45 -0000
Subject: Severus as friend
In-Reply-To: <g3k8rh+5h0n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3lbo5+7p2i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183327

"Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"

  To me it seems he would have rebuffed Petunia and continued
> trying to drive her away from Lily even if Petunia had tried to be
> friendly with him. Once he was friends with Lily, would he have
> deigned to accept overtures of friendship from another wizarding 
child who was less beautiful and intelligent and magically powerful 
than Lily?

Potioncat:
You may be right about Petunia, but I could hardly blame him for not 
liking her. Do you think that if Lily had been more like Hermione, he 
would had dropped their friendship at Hogwarts? Because I don't think 
it's her appearance that captured his devotion.


> Catlady: 
> Once at Hogwarts, it seems to me that he had all the friends he
> needed: a couple of the more intelligent (altho' not more moral)
> Slytherin House mates and super-duper Lily. 

Potioncat:
Your questions made me re-think my answer. I thought about all of us 
who said, 'yes, we'd want to be Severus Snape's friend at Hogwarts.' 
Then I pictured little Sev, overwhelmed by overtures of friendship 
from all of us at once. He would think he'd died and gone to the 
great train station in the sky. That Evans girl would be quickly 
forgotten!

Erm, seriously:

Canon shows almost everyone travels in House packs. Ginny seemed to 
have friends from other houses; Hermione seemed to know students from 
other houses better than the boys did. Bur for the most part, 
friendships formed in the houses and it would be difficult to 
establish a friendship from a different house. Understanding that, I 
think if a Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff extended a friendly gesture, 
Severus wouldn't dismiss it.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd never be sorted into 
Slytherin. I don't have the slightest bit of ambition, and I don't 
think my blood is any better than anyone elses. (Although I am very 
proud of my Scot-Irish blood!)

 > 





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Jun 22 11:42:38 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:42:38 -0000
Subject: Loose Ends,  (was Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3k0sb+ntfg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3ldre+v1v5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183328


> 
> Pippin:

> Harry eventually befriends Luna -- but he never thinks of her as a
> Good Ravenclaw, or proof that not all Ravenclaws are like the ones 
who
> were afraid of him, or, heaven forfend, a model of what a decent
> Ravenclaw should be like. 

Potioncat:
Oh, I agree, and I never expected JKR to point out 'The Good 
Slytherin'; this was our creation all along. A few have suggested 
that Snape, Slughorn and Phinneas Nigellus could all be considered 
Good Slytherins.
 
 
 
> Pippin:
> But you'd only see it if you were disposed to be fair and if your
> experiences lent themselves to a fair assessment. They might not, if
> there was a subgroup of a group of kids who made it their mission to
> make life unpleasant for you, and a subgroup of adults, formerly
> members of that group, who were trying to kill you. Canon shows us
> exactly what that's like.

Potioncat:
You know, this actually reminds me of a couple of experiences I've 
had lately. It had to do with customer service issues. Nevermind, 
it's not canon.

>Pippin: 
> We know that  Harry  can be  unfair and not realize it. There's a
> subgroup of Slytherins who tried to make things bad for Harry and a
> subgroup of former Slytherins who tried to kill him. We know that
> the narrator does not give us a fair or inclusive picture of 
Muggles,
> and this is never corrected.

Potioncat:
And that disappoints me---in the same way I'm disappointed that Snape 
didn't survive. It doesn't make it a flaw in the writing. Essentially 
JKR wrote a Western. The Slytherin gang is terrorising the town (WW)
while the helpless, not quite brave enough townspeople (Ravenclaws 
and Hufflepuffs)live in fear. Then the Gryffindor boys show up, rally 
some of the braver locals, and have a big shoot out at high noon. I 
suppose to round this out, the Muggles are the Indians over the hill, 
sometimes involved, but mostly not.
 
> Pippin:
> Under those circumstances, should we expect either the
> narrator's or Harry's experience of Slytherin to be "realistic" ie,
> reflective of what we assume to be the fictional reality of JKR's
> world? Isn't it more realistic that it wouldn't be? 

Potioncat:
Very good point. The other character who is so anti-Slytherin is 
Hagrid. His Hogwarts-student experience was very similar to Harry's.





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 22 15:43:54 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:43:54 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3lbo5+7p2i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3lrvq+7nek@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183329

> >>Potioncat:
> <snip>
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd never be sorted into 
> Slytherin. I don't have the slightest bit of ambition, and I don't 
> think my blood is any better than anyone elses. (Although I am very 
> proud of my Scot-Irish blood!)

Betsy Hp:
And that's what makes me cringe.  In the end, Slytherin is 
the "racist house."  And I mean, it really truly is, I'm not trying 
to argue (anymore *g*) that JKR was cleverly pointing out the ease of 
falling into prejudice and stereotype by setting up an easy to fall 
into prejudice and stereotype that "all Slytherin's are bad -- born 
that way, don't you know."  Instead, yes, they *are* all that bad.

I still have *no idea* why Salazar was ever invited into the original 
fold, and I *certainly* don't understand why Slytherin House was 
allowed to remain after he rubbed his true colors (never a big secret 
to begin with, per the Sorting Hat) into everyone's face.

The only conclusion I can come to (distasteful as it is to me) is 
that within the WW some people are just bad and it's best to identify 
them early.  And ostracize them.

Betsy Hp




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jun 22 16:57:07 2008
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 22 Jun 2008 16:57:07 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/22/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1214153827.9.88250.m55@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183330

Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday June 22, 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: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20080622/56fbc758/attachment.html>

From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Jun 22 22:09:24 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:09:24 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are (*not* ) bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3lrvq+7nek@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3miik+h3j5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183331

> Betsy Hp:
> And that's what makes me cringe.  In the end, Slytherin is 
> the "racist house."And I mean, it really truly is, I'm not trying 
> to argue (anymore *g*) that JKR was cleverly pointing out the ease
of  falling into prejudice and stereotype by setting up an easy to
fall into prejudice and stereotype that "all Slytherin's are bad --
born  that way, don't you know."  

Pippin: 

*Of course* it's not prejudiced to say that Slytherin    c. 1997 was 
a racist house, just as  few would think it  prejudiced to say that
the US, c. 1789, was a racist country. 

But surely it would be wrong, and prejudiced, and stereotyping, to say
that early Americans  must have been innately, equally, permanently or
uniquely racist.

Canon shows that Slytherin was a racist house. But it also
demonstrates that its racism was not unique (young Dumbledore), equal
in degree (Slughorn), permanent (Snape) or inborn (Riddle.) The
tendency to prejudice may be innate to humans, but what in canon
shows that Slytherins are innately more prejudiced than other people? 
 

"The Good Slytherin" could have been a clever and
interesting character, much like Charlie Chan or Mr. Moto. (Can you
tell I've been watching Asian Images in Film on TCM?) But such
characters, though obviously presenting a much more positive image
than villains like Fu Manchu, are still limited, formed by
pre-conceived ideas. 

And a pre-conceived idea is exactly what the Good Slytherin was -- it
wasn't  based on any observed Slytherin, but on the emotional need  to
balance the assumption that other  Slytherins were somehow innately,
permanently and uniquely evil. But that assumption didn't need to be
balanced, IMO. It was shown to be false.

JKR could have indicated it was false by having a character say, "Wow,
I used to believe this but it wasn't true." But JKR's characters never
do that -- when they have a change of heart, even in response to
dramatic events, it happens slowly, almost imperceptibly, and the
character in question is often the last to notice. 

Gryffindor institutionalizes courage and chivalry the way Slytherin
institutionalized racism. IMO, that's not a biased observation either.

 By our standards (but not necessarily by the standards of the
Founders) that makes Gryffindor a superior house. But   stereotyping
based on that observation is unwise, for canon shows that Gryffindors
are not uniformly (McClaggan), uniquely (Snape), innately (Lupin), or
permanently (Pettigrew) brave and chivalrous.


Pippin









From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 22 22:09:40 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:09:40 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3lrvq+7nek@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3mij4+m27s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183332

> Betsy Hp:
> And that's what makes me cringe.  In the end, Slytherin is 
> the "racist house."  And I mean, it really truly is, I'm not trying 
> to argue (anymore *g*) that JKR was cleverly pointing out the ease of 
> falling into prejudice and stereotype by setting up an easy to fall 
> into prejudice and stereotype that "all Slytherin's are bad -- born 
> that way, don't you know."  Instead, yes, they *are* all that bad.
> 
> I still have *no idea* why Salazar was ever invited into the original 
> fold, and I *certainly* don't understand why Slytherin House was 
> allowed to remain after he rubbed his true colors (never a big secret 
> to begin with, per the Sorting Hat) into everyone's face.

Zara:
Presumably, Slytherin was invited to found Hogwarts because he was a 
good friend of the other founders, especially Godric, because he ws a 
highly skilled and powerful wizard, and because he had the power and 
influence and following to attract many young witches and wizards to 
the school.

After he left, I presume the House was kept around because the same 
could be said about its current students and Alumni Association. (I am 
aware no such organizations are mentioned in canon, I am using the term 
loosely, to indicate the seeming tendency of adults to still take pride 
in their Houses and want their children in them, see e.g. the Weasleys, 
the Malfoys, and the B;lacks, for their respective Houses).

In Salazar's day, and even in Harry's, there was nothing illegal about 
the notion that certain families were better and more important than 
others. Nor about the suspicion that the best witches and wizards were 
descended from those families, or that Muggleborns are naturally less 
talented. And these notions were widespread within society, so a wild-
eyed reformer wishing to close Slytherin House and stigmatize such 
views at a later date, would meet stiff resistance from a sizable 
portion of the population and of the membership of Hogwarts' Borad of 
Governors. And all these reasonably popular and completely legal 
political views, are only one of the things Slytherin House is for.

One thing it is never said to be for, is terror and violence to 
implement an extreme blood supremacist state. However, for obvious 
reasons, anyone advocating such, would a fortiori already be in the 
pureblood prejudice camp, hence likely in Slytherin.





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 23 01:36:28 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:36:28 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3mij4+m27s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3mums+a898@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183333

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > In the end, Slytherin is the "racist house."
> > <snip>
 
> >>Zara:
> Presumably, Slytherin was invited to found Hogwarts because he was 
> a good friend of the other founders, especially Godric...<snip>

Betsy Hp:
That's what confuses me.  Why was Godric (and the rest *g*) attracted 
to a racist?  I mean, Salazar wasn't subtle -- he out and out stated 
that as far as he was concerned, certain students need not apply.

> >>Zara:
> After he left, I presume the House was kept around because the same 
> could be said about its current students and Alumni Association.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But... West Point doesn't have a codified subset of students who 
associate themselves with the Confederacy, despite the powerful 
graduates associated with that side of the Civil War.  Plus, since 
this all happened *well* within a generation, I have a hard time 
believing the traditions were *that* well set.

> >>Zara:
> In Salazar's day, and even in Harry's, there was nothing illegal   
> about the notion that certain families were better and more        
> important than others.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
There's no law against the Ku Klux Klan, either.  Doesn't mean 
schools actively maintain a loving and safe environment for those 
tiny little eleven year olds who just *adore* the Klan and everything 
they stand for.  Why does Hogwarts? Why *did* Hogwarts? 

> >>Zara:
> And these notions were widespread within society, so a wild-
> eyed reformer wishing to close Slytherin House and stigmatize such 
> views at a later date, would meet stiff resistance from a sizable 
> portion of the population and of the membership of Hogwarts' Borad 
> of Governors.

Betsy Hp:
I wasn't really thinking of "wild-eyed reformers."  I was thinking of 
the Founders deciding, after Salazer did his, "screw you guys, I'm 
going home," exit, to close down his House (who'd argue that they 
didn't have valid call to?  they were the *Founders* for goodness 
sake!) especially as it espoused values they weren't that thrilled 
with.  (Or so they *claimed*... ::wink, wink, nudge, nudge::)

Gosh, they could have just said something rotten had snuck in and not 
made a big stink about *what* exactly they'd found rotten if they 
were that worried about bad publicity.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> Canon shows that Slytherin was a racist house. But it also
> demonstrates that its racism was not unique (young Dumbledore),    
> equal in degree (Slughorn), permanent (Snape) or inborn (Riddle.)   
> The tendency to prejudice may be innate to humans, but what in canon
> shows that Slytherins are innately more prejudiced than other      
> people?

Betsy Hp:
The Sorting Hat by laying out the principles of all the members of 
each House (Slytherins are all, by definition, racists, otherwise 
they wouldn't be in that House in the first place); the lack of a 
single Slytherin in Neville's underground group; that call to arms 
scene wherein no one from Slytherin House stood up for Hogwarts and 
Harry (their loyalty was to themselves, not the WW); Voldemort's 
attempt to destroy the Sorting Hat and make all students Slytherins 
by default, and by implication, his.

Slytherin equals the Ku Klux Klan and/or the Nazi Party.  But even 
more so, because a soul searching device made doubly sure all members 
really were racist at heart before sticking them in that house.

Dumbledore was bamboozled by that most dangerous of emotions: lust 
(aka love, per JKR, that saucy minx), and so his little moral-bobble 
is forgivable.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> JKR could have indicated it was false by having a character        
> say, "Wow, I used to believe this but it wasn't true." But JKR's   
> characters never do that -- when they have a change of heart, even 
> in response to dramatic events, it happens slowly, almost           
> imperceptibly, and the character in question is often the last to   
> notice.

Betsy Hp:
*Very* imperceptible as this reader failed to notice it, too. <bg>  
Are we to believe the Sorting Hat's song vis a vis Slytherin has 
changed now?  They aren't as into blood as they used to be?

> >>Pippin:
> Gryffindor institutionalizes courage and chivalry the way Slytherin
> institutionalized racism. IMO, that's not a biased observation      
> either.

Betsy Hp:
Yes.  Within this universe, that all Slytherins are racist is not 
biased or prejudiced.  It's simply a fact.  And that the most 
important educational institution in the UK WW supports the 
continuation of this House and its philosophy is also a fact.

The first fact bothers me because it supports the idea that broad 
labels really *are* accurate (what sort of person is he?  just take a 
peek at his school tie), which is an important foundation for any 
argument supporting prejudice.  The second fact bothers me in that it 
prevents me from seeing Hogwarts as an institution worthy of 
admiration and worth saving.

By allowing Slytherin to exist within its walls in the powerful 
position as a school House, Hogwarts identifies itself as an 
instituion that agrees with Slytherins' philosophy. 

> >>Pippin:
> By our standards (but not necessarily by the standards of the
> Founders) that makes Gryffindor a superior house.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, I'd say by the Founders as well, seeing that Salazar stormed 
off.  (Unless they were arguing about proper tea service? <g>)

> >>Pippin:
> But stereotyping based on that observation is unwise, for canon    
> shows that Gryffindors are not uniformly (McClaggan), uniquely      
> (Snape), innately (Lupin), or permanently (Pettigrew) brave and     
> chivalrous.

Betsy Hp:
Yes, but all Gryffindors strive for bravery and chivalry.  And all 
Slytherins strive for racism and blood purity.  True, not everyone 
measures up and becomes great examples of their House 
(Harry/Voldemort), and some fail utterly (Peter/Snape), but the goal 
is very clearly stated.

Betsy Hp




From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 23 04:39:53 2008
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:39:53 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3mums+a898@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3n9ep+s0tc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183334

> > >>Zara:
> > In Salazar's day, and even in Harry's, there was nothing illegal 
> > about the notion that certain families were better and more
> >  important than others. <snip>

> Betsy Hp:
> There's no law against the Ku Klux Klan, either.  Doesn't mean 
> schools actively maintain a loving and safe environment for those 
> tiny little eleven year olds who just *adore* the Klan and 
> everything they stand for.  Why does Hogwarts? Why *did* Hogwarts? 

Jen: I read Slytherins as having more power in their world than the 
Klan or Confederate sympathizers have in ours.  Families like the 
Malfoys & Blacks used money and power to influence the highest levels 
of the MOM and the governors of Hogwarts.  A West Point grad hoping 
to start the "Students for the Confederacy" group has to fight 
against grads of equal power & influence who don't want such a group, 
not to mention all the citizens who would actively oppose the group 
if they got wind of the idea.  Lucius goes straight to the top, 
whether that's threatening the governors at Hogwarts or bribing 
Fudge.  The West Point grad or the Klan member would need to bribe 
the US President in order to stand on equal footing with Lucius in 
his world. 

The bottom line is the WW just doesn't have *that* many members vying 
for power.  First off, only a human would hold the necessary 
influence so that cuts out the non-human groups.  Then it's shown 
that the pure blood agenda is appealing to a much larger group than 
just those who openly espoused pure blood superiority.  Those two 
factors alone made it possible for Slytherin house & its followers to 
flourish and continue.  Actually, that was a big part of the story to 
me after DH, that a small & mostly Slytherin group was able to seize 
power because they'd spent years using their money/influence/magical 
power to ensure their agenda was never out of favor.

> Betsy Hp:
> I wasn't really thinking of "wild-eyed reformers."  I was thinking 
of the Founders deciding, after Salazer did his, "screw you guys, I'm 
> going home," exit, to close down his House (who'd argue that they 
> didn't have valid call to?  they were the *Founders* for goodness 
> sake!) especially as it espoused values they weren't that thrilled 
> with.  (Or so they *claimed*... ::wink, wink, nudge, nudge::)

Jen: I don't see any reason why they couldn't.  I think they didn't 
because they got tripped up by the "Magic is Might" problem that 
plagues wizards & witches - belief in the superiority of magic over 
logic or common sense.  They were a little too attached to the clever 
Sorting Hat & the ritual of it all to see the danger inherent in the 
system.  Or perhaps the other Founders saw the problems of Sorting 
since the hat mentions it during the song in OOTP, but they weren't 
wary enough to actually stop or change it.  Then later generations 
revered the Founders & system too much to give it up either.  The 
tragic human flaw of fooling oneself by hoping for the best outcome 
instead of listening to the warning bells.




From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Mon Jun 23 12:47:35 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:47:35 -0500
Subject: Slytherins are (*not* ) bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
References: <1214222885.2902.3101.m46@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <001101c8d52f$4fc13360$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>

No: HPFGUIDX 183335

In the discussion of the "good Slytherin" or lack thereof, what about 
Ted Tonks's wife, and Teddy Lupin's grandmother, whose first name I 
have forgotten, and I don't have the books handy.

She was a Black by birth, and Sirius said that he was the first of his 
family not to be in Slytherin, so one can assume that she was a 
Slytherin.  Yet, she married a muggle born, and was willing to supply 
a safe house for On The Run Harry and to provide loving care for the 
son of a werewolf, and apparently support her daughter's marriage to a 
werewolf.

Jerri 





From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 23 13:00:15 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:00:15 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <00d601c8d3c6$9dac01a0$6401a8c0@homemain>
References: <g3itab+27vl@eGroups.com> <00d601c8d3c6$9dac01a0$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <485F9E5F.30901@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183336

bboyminn:
So, in the final book, I think she fixed her eyes on the
goal line, and plowed straight toward it.

Shelley:
Yes, I agree with this analysis, and that it way I think this last book
suffers so.

CJ:
While I felt the book suffered for exactly the opposite reason. HBP was 
a 672-page cliffhanger setting the reader up for an expected mad Horcrux 
hunt. But what we get instead in DH is a long but ultimately pointless 
diversion through the Deathly Hallows plot line -- anything but "plowing 
straight toward the goal", IMHO. Eliminating the Hallows from DH would 
have resulted in a shorter, faster, more-evenly-paced story, freed us 
from long, boring chapters of the Trio wandering around waiting for 
Harry to finally make up his mind to do what we were expecting him to do 
in the first place, and allowed JKR plenty of room to tie up many of the 
dropped plotlines. Oh, and actually allowed for Horcruxes to be 
destroyed *on page*.

Instead, the only contribution the Hallows plot line makes to the book 
is a long, rambling monologue by Harry at the end that made anything but 
sense.

--CJ




From kersberg at chello.nl  Mon Jun 23 14:09:02 2008
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:09:02 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3lrvq+7nek@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3oapu+bl13@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183337

BetsyHp wrote:

> I still have *no idea* why Salazar was ever invited into the
> original


When you listen closely to the Sorting Hat songs, you can conclude that
Salazar Slytherin wasn't much more prejudging then the other Founders.
Gryffindor thought only brave wizards and witches worth saving
and Ravenclaw only clever ones. In their own way they were as selective
as Slytherin and it's only common-sense Hufflepuff who sees the need of
protecting all magical beings and humans as belonging to each other and
needing each other.

kamion53


ELFY NOTE:  Kamion, will you please contact the list elves at the owner address?  HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com [minus that space]



From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 23 14:46:09 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:46:09 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3oapu+bl13@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3ocvh+jmjr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183338

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kamion53" <kersberg at ...> wrote:
<SNIP>
> When you listen closely to the Sorting Hat songs, you can conclude 
that
> Salazar Slytherin wasn't much more prejudging then the other Founders.
> Gryffindor thought only brave wizards and witches worth saving
> and Ravenclaw only clever ones. In their own way they were as 
selective
> as Slytherin and it's only common-sense Hufflepuff who sees the need 
of
> protecting all magical beings and humans as belonging to each other 
and
> needing each other.


Alla:

Actually I never could conclude that. Prejudging - sure in a sense, but 
to me it makes a huge difference what they were prejudging upon. 
Theoretically person can work upon becoming braver, even it is all in 
one's mind to convince oneself how to hide the fear, etc.

And the person more than theoretically CAN work on improving their 
performance in school. And that I know not from theory and it works.

But there is no way person can work upon changing their origins, their 
blood. Therefore to me Salasar's prejudging was absolutely the worst, 
period. He prejudged on something person can never ever change IMO.

As to why he was ever invited, I do not get the surprise really. I 
agree with Zara's reasons and I mean, since founders indeed selected 
the criteria of the students they want to teach, they I would imagine 
not minded Salasar doing that.

But I disagree that Godric and Ravena wanted to **save** only students 
who fit certain criteria.

After all, it is only when Salasar decided that he is against taking 
muggleborns to **School**, not just to his house, fight ensued.

IMO founders wanted to admit everybody, but different teacher wanted to 
teach different students.

JMO,

Alla.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 23 15:50:54 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:50:54 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are (*not* ) bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <001101c8d52f$4fc13360$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>
Message-ID: <g3ogou+saie@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183339

Jerri:
> In the discussion of the "good Slytherin" or lack thereof, what about 
> Ted Tonks's wife, and Teddy Lupin's grandmother, whose first name I 
> have forgotten, and I don't have the books handy.
> 
> She was a Black by birth, and Sirius said that he was the first of 
his 
> family not to be in Slytherin, so one can assume that she was a 
> Slytherin.  Yet, she married a muggle born, and was willing to supply 
> a safe house for On The Run Harry and to provide loving care for the 
> son of a werewolf, and apparently support her daughter's marriage to 
a 
> werewolf.

Magpie:
Andromeda. Easy name to forget since she's barely a character in the 
story and we never know her house affiliation. We can surmise that she 
should be a Slytherin, but then, people thought that about Tonks too. 
We have to start looking for cameos for characters we barely know 
because for the most part, all the Slytherins are at worst actively 
evil and at best have glaringly obvious flaws that make them jerks but 
maybe learned not to be quite so actively bigoted and evil.

-m




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Mon Jun 23 16:50:40 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:50:40 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <485F9E5F.30901@yahoo.com>
References: <g3itab+27vl@eGroups.com> <00d601c8d3c6$9dac01a0$6401a8c0@homemain>
	 <485F9E5F.30901@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806230950x349ef119g7826427364cfbaf1@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183340

CJ:

what we get instead in DH is a long but ultimately pointless
diversion through the Deathly Hallows plot line -- anything but "plowing
straight toward the goal", IMHO. Eliminating the Hallows from DH would
have resulted in a shorter, faster, more-evenly-paced story, freed us
from long, boring chapters of the Trio wandering around waiting for
Harry to finally make up his mind to do what we were expecting him to do
in the first place, and allowed JKR plenty of room to tie up many of the
dropped plotlines. Oh, and actually allowed for Horcruxes to be
destroyed *on page*.

Lynda:

What we got was exactly what JKR had planned all along. A lot of readers did
a very good job of convincing themselves what "had to happen" in the last
book, but not being the writer they were at least partially incorrect.
Eliminating the hallows from the last book would have left gaping holes in
the plot because there were clues scattered throughout the earlier books
that alluded to them indirectly--very indirectly I admit, but that's the way
Rowling writes. As for the horcruxes being destroyed "on page" they were. At
least the last time I read the book, which was a month ago--the audio
version.

As for dropped plotlines--I'm just glad she didn't give us as 1200 page
seventh installment of the story. I can live with not knowing a few things.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From kennyg1864 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 23 18:07:37 2008
From: kennyg1864 at yahoo.com (kennyg1864)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:07:37 -0000
Subject: Question #1
Message-ID: <g3oop9+gtqg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183341

Hello all,

Glad to discover this forum...after recently re-reading DH, I still
have a few questions I haven't seen answered elsewhere.  (my apologies
if they've been answered here previously!)

#1: How could Nagini (in Bathilda's body) say "Come" from the next room?

Either:
- Nagini was speaking Parseltongue, or
- he manipulated Bathilda's tongue and mouth to say it in English.

The second seems less likely, given the mechanics involved.  Still, he
was able to beckon her hand and nod her head, but those aren't nearly
as intricate.  AFAIK he didn't have magical abilities, at least not
telekinetic ones.

Not to mention that he may not have even known the English word "Come"
(and how to form it), but only the Parseltongue equivalent.

(side question:  Did Nagini understand English?  Did he actually
respond meaningfully to their questions?  IIRC he pointed to the pile
of rags when Harry asked where the sword was, although that could have
just been a distraction, irrespective of Harry's question)

So I conclude it was more likely he was speaking Parseltongue.
Especially since JKR has him/her say it from the next room.

*But* what is odd is Hermione's reaction, or lack thereof:

"Come!" called Bathilda from the next room.
Hermione jumped and clutched Harry's arm.
"It's okay," said Harry...

Why didn't Hermione recognize that it was Parseltongue? She's heard
Harry speak it on more than one occasion. Surely she would do more than
just jump, as smart as she is.  Something like "Harry, what's that
hissing sound?" :P

Obviously there's no way around it, since it would ruin the reveal.

However, JKR could have just left it out, and had them follow her
(since they wanted to talk to her anyway).

kennyg1864




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Jun 23 19:27:38 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:27:38 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are (*not* ) bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3ogou+saie@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3otfa+irp9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183342

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie"
<sistermagpie at ...> wrote: 
> because for the most part, all the Slytherins are at worst actively 
> evil and at best have glaringly obvious flaws that make them jerks
but  maybe learned not to be quite so actively bigoted and evil.
> 

Pippin:
And how does that make them different from the other characters? Aside
from the cameos,  all the characters are jerks on occasion. They
bully, they make bigoted remarks, and they let themselves be
manipulated by Voldemort. 

Alla:
But there is no way person can work upon changing their origins, their
blood. Therefore to me Salasar's prejudging was absolutely the worst,
period. He prejudged on something person can never ever change IMO.

Pippin:
But it's also something that doesn't exist. I mean, we are all agreed
that there's absolutely no such thing as pure blood, right? The Hat
can't look inside your head and tell whether you have pure blood,
because there ain't no such animal.  It can only tell whether you
think your blood is pure. 

Once no one believes that having magical parents makes your blood
purer, the hat will no longer be able to sort those people into
Slytherin, because they won't exist. There could still be Slytherins,
but they'd be chosen for  other qualities: ambition, cunning, a
certain disregard for rules... The hat will go on singing its songs,
but no one will think that Slytherins go in for that stuff nowadays.

Betsy Hp:
But... West Point doesn't have a codified subset of students who
associate themselves with the Confederacy, despite the powerful
graduates associated with that side of the Civil War. Plus, since
this all happened *well* within a generation, I have a hard time
believing the traditions were *that* well set.

Pippin:
You might be telescoping history here. The US Military in WWII was
highly segregated. My dad said the US Navy at that time was the most
racist institution he ever encountered. 

Dumbledore and Arthur are radicals in their world. Moderate opinion
and wizarding institutions seem to be more with folks like Fudge and
Slughorn, who don't want to see Muggles slaughtered or Muggleborns
driven out of the WW, but stereotype them as inferior.  

They don't understand, being ignorant of Muggle history,  how easily
institutions that were already discriminatory could be manipulated by
someone like Voldemort into outright hatred and mass murder. Which is
exactly what happens in the books. 

Betsy Hp:
There's no law against the Ku Klux Klan, either. Doesn't mean
schools actively maintain a loving and safe environment for those
tiny little eleven year olds who just *adore* the Klan and everything
they stand for. Why does Hogwarts? Why *did* Hogwarts?

Pippin:
Um, I think they do, as long as the students aren't openly attacking
others. AFAIK, in my country you can belong to all the racist
organizations you like, as long as they don't advocate force.  It's
disgusting, IMO, but being disgusting is not against the law.

I don't believe that schools which teach freedom of conscience should
expel students for their beliefs. And I know of no parents who would
want their children indoctrinated against their beliefs. 

Why would the parents allow it if they had a choice? You'll notice
that Voldemort made attendance at Hogwarts mandatory, and that it
wasn't before.
 

Betsy Hp:
The Sorting Hat by laying out the principles of all the members of
each House (Slytherins are all, by definition, racists, otherwise
they wouldn't be in that House in the first place); the lack of a
single Slytherin in Neville's underground group; that call to arms
scene wherein no one from Slytherin House stood up for Hogwarts and
Harry (their loyalty was to themselves, not the WW); Voldemort's
attempt to destroy the Sorting Hat and make all students Slytherins
by default, and by implication, his.

Slytherin equals the Ku Klux Klan and/or the Nazi Party. 

Pippin:
I'd say it equals the Old South and/or pre-WWII Europe.
Institutionally racist, yes. Innately racist, no.

Slughorn would never willingly join the KKK or the Nazis. He's deeply
ashamed that he ever helped Riddle. He's not brave enough to fight
back alone, (neither are most of the Gryffindors) and he, like Harry,
believes it's his job to keep his people out of the fight if he can.

The people in Neville's underground army or standing up for Harry and
Hogwarts didn't just up and decide to do it from the goodness of their
hearts. They were actively recruited, over the space of three years,
by people who assumed (with the exception of Dumbledore) that
Slytherins could not be trusted. We hear of a very concerted effort to
make sure that everybody trusts Harry. But once Dumbledore dies,
there's no one  extending that message to Slytherin House. Snape, as
we're told, has to belittle Harry whether he wants to or not.


Betsy_Hp
But even more so, because a soul searching device made doubly sure all
members really were racist at heart before sticking them in that house.

Pippin:

But the Hat can't create racism any more than it can create cunning or
ambition.  Put potential Slytherins in another house and maybe they
won't learn to hate Muggleborns. But they'll hate somebody, unless
they learn another way to handle their anger. Which they can do just
as well in Slytherin. 

 Besides which, it's no good trying to fight bigotry piecemeal. The
Hat doesn't care how people feel about part-Trolls, or part-Giants or
werewolves, so there are plenty of bigots in the other houses and they
will all have to change their attitudes if this problem is to be fought.

Betsy Hp:
Yes, but all Gryffindors strive for bravery and chivalry. And all
Slytherins strive for racism and blood purity.

Pippin:
But you can't strive for blood purity.  You've either got it or you
don't. When nobody believes they have it, it will no longer exist. On
that day, the Hat might as well try to sort for Martians.

Pippin






From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 23 19:40:30 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:40:30 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806230950x349ef119g7826427364cfbaf1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g3ou7e+cj50@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183343

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" <sweenlit at ...> wrote:
>
> CJ:
> 
> what we get instead in DH is a long but ultimately pointless
> diversion through the Deathly Hallows plot line -- anything but "plowing
> straight toward the goal", IMHO. Eliminating the Hallows from DH would
> have resulted in a shorter, faster, more-evenly-paced story, freed us
> from long, boring chapters of the Trio wandering around waiting for
> Harry to finally make up his mind to do what we were expecting him to do
> in the first place, and allowed JKR plenty of room to tie up many of the
> dropped plotlines. Oh, and actually allowed for Horcruxes to be
> destroyed *on page*.
> 
> Lynda:
> 
> What we got was exactly what JKR had planned all along. A lot of readers did
> a very good job of convincing themselves what "had to happen" in the last
> book, but not being the writer they were at least partially incorrect.
> Eliminating the hallows from the last book would have left gaping holes in
> the plot because there were clues scattered throughout the earlier books
> that alluded to them indirectly--very indirectly I admit, but that's the way
> Rowling writes. 

Montavilla47:
I'm curious.  What are these clues?  I'm not sure I picked up on them.






From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 23 19:48:53 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:48:53 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are (*not* ) bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3otfa+irp9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3oun5+hvo7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183344

Magpie:
> > because for the most part, all the Slytherins are at worst 
actively 
> > evil and at best have glaringly obvious flaws that make them jerks
> but  maybe learned not to be quite so actively bigoted and evil.
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> And how does that make them different from the other characters? 
Aside
> from the cameos,  all the characters are jerks on occasion. They
> bully, they make bigoted remarks, and they let themselves be
> manipulated by Voldemort. 

Magpie:
"Jerks on occasion" is not being a jerk. I really don't think the 
author would say her good guys are jerks at all (in fact for some 
characters I'm not so sure she'd *ever* admit to them being jerks). 
They might make mistakes, but that doesn't make them a bad guy.  
There is a difference between Slytherin and the other houses (and 
other people outside of Hogwarts who never went there). There always 
has been in canon and there still is.

 
> Alla:
> But there is no way person can work upon changing their origins, 
their
> blood. Therefore to me Salasar's prejudging was absolutely the 
worst,
> period. He prejudged on something person can never ever change IMO.
> 
> Pippin:
> But it's also something that doesn't exist. I mean, we are all 
agreed
> that there's absolutely no such thing as pure blood, right? The Hat
> can't look inside your head and tell whether you have pure blood,
> because there ain't no such animal.  It can only tell whether you
> think your blood is pure. 

Magpie:
Why wouldn't the Hat be able look into your head and tell whether you 
have Pureblood? Just because no Wizard is truly Pureblood doesn't 
mean the Hat can't actually be taking Salazar's request into 
consideration. It's magic. The Hat could get what he meant regardless 
of what the kid thought. I think Alla's point still stands that 
saying "My school is going to be very academically challenging so you 
have to be a certain intellectual level to get in" is different than 
saying "No Jews." Whether or not the person thinks they're Jewish 
might matter or might not. Though it seems that agreeing with 
Pureblood superiority is indeed a trait that Sorts for Slytherin, 
more so than just being Pureblood (since Purebloods get Sorted 
elsewhere) which is why it winds up as the bigot house.

-m







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Jun 23 21:20:27 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:20:27 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are (*not* ) bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3oun5+hvo7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3p42r+stuo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183345

> Magpie:
> "Jerks on occasion" is not being a jerk. I really don't think the 
> author would say her good guys are jerks at all (in fact for some 
> characters I'm not so sure she'd *ever* admit to them being jerks).

Pippin:
She'd never say that her good guys bullied, were bigoted, or were
manipulated by Voldemort? I'd guess she hasn't read the books, then
<g>. The good guys do not always do these things by mistake, nor
always realize that they've made a mistake.

JKR does say that she believes people are innately good unless they're
very damaged. It's probably true that damaged people are more welcome
in Slytherin. But even that wouldn't make it true that all Slytherins
are damaged. 

"Bad Guy" is a stereotype. But canon isn't divided into good people
and Slytherins, it is at every moment divided into people who are
choosing what is right and people who are choosing what is easy. JKR
believes, and the books show, that it's easier to make that choice if
you're brave. 

But she also shows that no House has a patent on bravery. Gryffindor
believed that he should choose the bravest people for his house, and
the hat tries to do this. But that doesn't stop other people from
being brave. Anyway, the part of the brave is not to make everyone
else as brave as they are (how could they?) but to use their courage
to protect others, as the Cloak does.

> Magpie:
> Why wouldn't the Hat be able look into your head and tell whether
you  have Pureblood? 

Pippin:
There's not supposed to be any detectable physical or magical
difference between people from all-magical families  and everyone
else. If there were, discrimination on that basis wouldn't be
automatically be racist. It would be perfectly valid to have a House
reserved for the different needs or abilities of those students, IMO. 
    
But bloodism in the WW is a bogus concept based on outmoded science,
like phlogiston, or aether, or the Aryan bloodism which it parodies.
If no one imagines there's a difference between the blood status of
one wizard and another, it ought to be impossible for the hat to pick
the purebloods out, and Slytherin House will no longer be swayed by
that ideology.  I understood that's what JKR meant by saying that the
pureblood influence was going to be diluted. 

Magpie"
 I think Alla's point still stands that  saying "My school is going to
be very academically challenging so you  have to be a certain
intellectual level to get in" is different than  saying "No Jews." 

Pippin:
Not in the way you think <g>. You're not supposed to be able to
increase your IQ by studying, OTOH anybody can become a Jew-by-choice.
But I personally as a Jew don't have a problem with a school that
excludes Jews because its mission is to teach members of another
faith, as long as the intent or the result isn't that Jews receive an
inferior education. That's not the case at Hogwarts. No one is saying
that Muggleborns at Hogwarts don't get the finest magical education
there is.

Pippin






From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 23 22:35:18 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:35:18 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806230950x349ef119g7826427364cfbaf1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <g3itab+27vl@eGroups.com> <00d601c8d3c6$9dac01a0$6401a8c0@homemain>	 <485F9E5F.30901@yahoo.com> <43e41d1e0806230950x349ef119g7826427364cfbaf1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48602526.2070508@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183346

CJ:
what we get instead in DH is a long but ultimately pointless
diversion through the Deathly Hallows plot line

Lynda:
Eliminating the hallows from the last book would have left gaping holes 
in the plot because there were clues scattered throughout the earlier 
books that alluded to them indirectly-- very indirectly I admit

CJ (Now):
I'm having difficulty reconciling "very indirect allusions" with "gaping 
holes".

Lynda:
A lot of readers did a very good job of convincing themselves what "had 
to happen" in the last
book, but not being the writer they were at least partially incorrect.

CJ (Now):
I will admit to being incorrect about what "had to happen" in the last 
book. But when the major plot line of HBP consists of Dumbledore 
tracking down horcruxes, all but getting himself killed in the process; 
when the destruction of the horcruxes is absolutely essential to 
defeating Voldemort; and when DD specifically commits that task to Harry 
before dying, I think I can be forgiven for thinking that's what we were 
going to get in book seven. Instead, after spending an *entire book* 
setting up the horcrux plot line, she shunts it aside for a new plot 
line that ultimately goes nowhere. I strongly suspect -- though of 
course I cannot prove -- that if there had been no DH plot line, nary a 
soul would have noticed those "gaping holes".

--CJ




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 23 23:16:27 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:16:27 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3n9ep+s0tc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3pasb+t58p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183347

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > There's no law against the Ku Klux Klan, either.  Doesn't mean 
> > schools actively maintain a loving and safe environment for those 
> > tiny little eleven year olds who just *adore* the Klan and 
> > everything they stand for.  Why does Hogwarts? Why *did*         
> > Hogwarts? 

> >>Jen: I read Slytherins as having more power in their world than   
> the Klan or Confederate sympathizers have in ours.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oh, I totally agree that by this century Slytherin was a well-
established House, with alumni and tradition behind it.  I was more 
wondering what the Founders were thinking in (a) inviting Salazar 
along in the first place and then (b) keeping his House, the keeper 
of his values, in their school after he left.  At that time period 
they could have cleared out the snake-pit with little trouble, as the 
snakes were still young and the Founders themselves were so powerful.

As it is, to me it looks like Hogwarts is stuck with codifying 
racism, but frowning on the students who, under Hogwart's direction, 
support the racist belief Hogwarts itself must also support, since it 
has a House dedicated to it. (catch 22?)

> >>Jen: I don't see any reason why they couldn't.  I think they     
> didn't because they got tripped up by the "Magic is Might" problem 
> that plagues wizards & witches - belief in the superiority of magic 
> over logic or common sense.  They were a little too attached to the 
> clever Sorting Hat & the ritual of it all to see the danger        
> inherent in the system.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, I think you're right.  It's just too bad (IMO) that nothing 
changes by series end and Hogwarts remains as is.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> But... West Point doesn't have a codified subset of students who
> associate themselves with the Confederacy, despite the powerful
> graduates associated with that side of the Civil War.

> >>Pippin:
> You might be telescoping history here. The US Military in WWII was
> highly segregated.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I'm not talking about segregation (I'm not that wide-eyed *g*).  I'm 
talking about the fact that some of West Point's best and brightest 
served in the Confederate army during the Civil War.  But when the 
war was over, even though some of those officers were still respected 
(e.g. Robert E. Lee), no one suggested a "School of the Confederacy" 
or some such thing forming at West Point.

I mean, obviously the analogy doesn't work perfectly (they rarely 
do), but Hogwarts *codifies* the values of a "Founder" who left the 
school.  And it continues to codify those values though it was those 
values that nearly tore the school and their country apart.  It 
strikes me as a bit odd.  And also as asking for trouble.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> There's no law against the Ku Klux Klan, either. Doesn't mean
> schools actively maintain a loving and safe environment for those
> tiny little eleven year olds who just *adore* the Klan and         
> everything they stand for. Why does Hogwarts? Why *did* Hogwarts?

> >>Pippin:
> Um, I think they do, as long as the students aren't openly attacking
> others.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
You know of a venerable and well-thought of school that houses 
students in a "Ku Klux Klan" dormitory, where the values and belief-
systems of the Klan are taught and encouraged?  Because there was a 
great hue and cry in St. Louis when the Klan wanted to support a 
section of highway.  I can't imagine such a school remaining well-
thought of and considered a place worthy of shaping the young minds 
entrusted to them. But that's just me. ;)

Again, the analogy isn't perfect, but Hogwarts doesn't just accept 
that some of its student body are naturally racist.  It *actively* 
supports that belief system by making sure those beliefs are 
maintained and kept safe from challengers.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> Slytherin equals the Ku Klux Klan and/or the Nazi Party.
> <snip>

> >>Pippin:
> I'd say it equals the Old South and/or pre-WWII Europe.
> Institutionally racist, yes. Innately racist, no.

Betsy Hp:
Yes, exactly.  And Hogwarts, and the WW, makes sure the Old South and 
pre-WWII Europe sticks around.  They maintain the institutional 
racism that makes sure even those who wouldn't necessarily be 
innately racist are properly and carefully taught.  (Though I think 
the Sorting Hat is looking for innate racism, right?)

> >>Pippin:
> But the Hat can't create racism any more than it can create cunning 
> or ambition. Put potential Slytherins in another house and maybe   
> they won't learn to hate Muggleborns. But they'll hate somebody,    
> unless they learn another way to handle their anger. Which they can 
> do just as well in Slytherin.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
There's nothing to suggest Slytherins are sorted for anger-issues, 
just cunning, ambition, and most importantly, racism.  The Hat 
doesn't create racism, true.  The Hat just makes sure it has a safe 
and warm environment in which to grow.

Betsy Hp




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 00:14:03 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:14:03 -0000
Subject: Question #1
In-Reply-To: <g3oop9+gtqg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3pe8b+krgd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183348

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kennyg1864" <kennyg1864 at ...> wrote:

> #1: How could Nagini (in Bathilda's body) say "Come" from the next
> room?
 
> Either:
> - Nagini was speaking Parseltongue, or
> - he manipulated Bathilda's tongue and mouth to say it in English.


zanooda:

Hi, Kenny! Nagini definitely spoke Parseltongue. Later Harry said to 
Hermione: "She didn't want to talk in front of you, because it was
Parseltongue, all Parseltongue, and I didn't realize, but of course I
could understand her" (p.347).


> Kenny wrote:

> (side question:  Did Nagini understand English?  Did he actually
> respond meaningfully to their questions?  IIRC he pointed to the 
> pile of rags when Harry asked where the sword was, although that 
> could have just been a distraction, irrespective of Harry's 
> question)


zanooda:

I'm not sure, but your second suggestion seems more realistic to me :-).
 

> Kenny wrote:
 
> Why didn't Hermione recognize that it was Parseltongue? She's heard
> Harry speak it on more than one occasion. Surely she would do more 
> than just jump, as smart as she is.  Something like "Harry, what's 
> that hissing sound?" :P


zanooda:

I think Hermione only heard Harry speak Parseltongue once, in the
Duelling club (CoS). Besides, the word "come" probably sounds like
some short hiss, maybe Hermione didn't even realize that the sound
came from "Bathilda", you know - just some sudden noise. I personally
don't have a problem with this :-).



zanooda, who is waiting for Kenny's second question, and who always
thought of Nagini as "she" :-).




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 01:04:49 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:04:49 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question #1
In-Reply-To: <g3pe8b+krgd@eGroups.com>
References: <g3pe8b+krgd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <48604831.9080603@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183349

zanooda:
Later Harry said to Hermione: "She didn't want to talk in front of you,
because it was Parseltongue, all Parseltongue, and I didn't realize,
but of course I could understand her" (p.347).

CJ:
This parallels the incident in the Dueling Club, when Harry was unaware 
that he'd been speaking parseltongue.

Any theories as to why that would be? Being multi-lingual myself has 
never stopped me from recognizing which language was being spoken at me.






From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 01:19:30 2008
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 01:19:30 -0000
Subject: Question #1
In-Reply-To: <48604831.9080603@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g3pi32+6t4e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183350

> CJ:
> ... Dueling Club, when Harry was unaware that he'd been speaking 
> parseltongue.

> Any theories as to why that would be?

Goddlefrood:

Must be because Harry didn't know at that time that he spoke 
Parseltongue, although one would have thought that hissing 
would sound different from English, eben to Harry at that 
point. Harry must have been so familiar with Parseltongue 
without knowing it that when he heard it, and spoke it himself, 
he must have thought he was speaking English. Odd though that 
may sound.

Goping back to the original question, I would add that come in 
Parseltongue must sound not too dissimilar to come in English, 
something like ssscossmess.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Jun 24 01:47:43 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 01:47:43 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are (*not* ) bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3p42r+stuo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3pjnv+rh6g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183351

> > Magpie:
> > "Jerks on occasion" is not being a jerk. I really don't think the 
> > author would say her good guys are jerks at all (in fact for some 
> > characters I'm not so sure she'd *ever* admit to them being 
jerks).
> 
> Pippin:
> She'd never say that her good guys bullied, were bigoted, or were
> manipulated by Voldemort? I'd guess she hasn't read the books, then
> <g>. The good guys do not always do these things by mistake, nor
> always realize that they've made a mistake.

Magpie:
I think she'd say James and Sirius bullied Snape. I don't think, if 
asked if, say, Harry is a bully or a bigot she'd say no-which is also 
stated by people in canon. I doubt she'd say Hermione was a bully or 
a bigot either. I'm not sure what the "manipulated by Voldemort" part 
is supposed to mean. Harry getting tricked into going to the Ministry 
isn't like Lucius Malfoy joining the DEs, for instance. 

But whether or not the good guys do these things by mistake or ever 
realized they've made a mistake, I still think JKR obviously has a 
different view of those mistakes than she does the mistakes of bad 
guys. In the things from interviews I've read it often seems like 
readers see more mistakes than she does with her good guys. Perhaps 
more importantly, they see different kinds of mistakes too--
iow, "This character is being cruel and sadistic" as opposed to "he 
has a fiery temper, especially when someone hurts his friends!" The 
fact that many of these "mistakes" are never noted by anybody in 
canon, or shown to be a problem, encourages them. they usually have 
plenty of readers cheering for and defending them--which makes me 
think if this was supposed to be a mindgame, it was a failure.

Pippin:
> "Bad Guy" is a stereotype. But canon isn't divided into good people
> and Slytherins, it is at every moment divided into people who are
> choosing what is right and people who are choosing what is easy. JKR
> believes, and the books show, that it's easier to make that choice 
if
> you're brave. 

Magpie:
I don't see anybody ever choosing what's right over what's easy, so 
we'd better leave that aside. I do see brave people being the ones 
most able to be good. But you still wind up with a lot of those 
cowardly evil people--most of them--in Slytherin. There are bad 
people in other houses too, but if you're Sorted into Slytherin, 
whatever JKR says about being damaged or not, intelligent people 
should worry about your character. You can't only be brave if you're 
in Gryffindor, it's not impossible to be cowardly or bad if you're 
not a Slytherin. But thinking about that doesn't change the obvious 
way that Slytherins stand apart from the school from beginning to 
end. There's a reason JKR worries when people openly identify with 
that house and chuckles in understanding when people ask why they 
don't just get rid of them. 


> 
> > Magpie:
> > Why wouldn't the Hat be able look into your head and tell whether
> you  have Pureblood? 
> 
> Pippin:
> There's not supposed to be any detectable physical or magical
> difference between people from all-magical families  and everyone
> else. If there were, discrimination on that basis wouldn't be
> automatically be racist. It would be perfectly valid to have a House
> reserved for the different needs or abilities of those students, 
IMO. 

Magpie:
It works by magic. There's no reason the Sorting Hat can't know 
somebody's heritage if it needs to know their heritage. It's not 
outdated science, it's not science at all.


> Magpie"
>  I think Alla's point still stands that  saying "My school is going 
to
> be very academically challenging so you  have to be a certain
> intellectual level to get in" is different than  saying "No Jews." 
> 
> Pippin:
> Not in the way you think <g>. You're not supposed to be able to
> increase your IQ by studying, OTOH anybody can become a Jew-by-
choice.
> But I personally as a Jew don't have a problem with a school that
> excludes Jews because its mission is to teach members of another
> faith, as long as the intent or the result isn't that Jews receive 
an
> inferior education. That's not the case at Hogwarts. No one is 
saying
> that Muggleborns at Hogwarts don't get the finest magical education
> there is.

Magpie:
I don't understand how this is relevent. Yes, as you say, you have to 
go to Hogwarts to get the best magical education. But Slytherin's 
only wanting Purebloods was based on bigotry and the belief that 
Muggleborns didn't deserve a good magical education. 

Betsy:
As it is, to me it looks like Hogwarts is stuck with codifying
racism, but frowning on the students who, under Hogwart's direction,
support the racist belief Hogwarts itself must also support, since it
has a House dedicated to it. (catch 22?)

Magpie:
Slytherin seems to play an important part in the way this all works, 
doesn't it? They're very handy to have around.

-m




From lealess at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 04:20:38 2008
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:20:38 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are (*not* ) bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3p42r+stuo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3psmm+gaqh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183352

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> Pippin:
<SNIP>
> 
> JKR does say that she believes people are innately good unless 
> they're very damaged. It's probably true that damaged people are 
> more welcome in Slytherin. But even that wouldn't make it true that 
> all Slytherins are damaged. 

Does JKR really say this? I wouldn't say that damaged people are
primarily sorted into Slytherin, or that they are even more welcome
there. Harry was almost sorted there only because of the piece of VM
in his head. Neville was a Gryffindor. I'm not even sure what
"damaged" has to do with the discussion, frankly.

> "Bad Guy" is a stereotype. But canon isn't divided into good people
> and Slytherins, it is at every moment divided into people who are
> choosing what is right and people who are choosing what is easy. JKR
> believes, and the books show, that it's easier to make that choice 
> if you're brave. 

JKR has warned female fans against falling for "bad boys," meaning
certain Slytherins, but let's not think she is stereotyping.

I agree that the good are not obviously good to you and me, but I
still think canon divides people into (1) "not a saint" but good and
(2) Slytherin. Most of the heroes are Gryffindor, the ones who save
the day. The Slytherins slither away, or fight alongside Voldemort.
Presumably, at any given moment, people choose, but their choices show
who they innately are. Narcissa betrays Voldemort, but only for her
son, not for the Greater Good. Snape devotes his life to Dumbledore's
cause, but only for his Lily, not for Dumbledore's Greater Good. Harry
and company, meanwhile, follow Dumbledore all the way. They might
get angry, but in the end, they remain true, and thus good.

> But she also shows that no House has a patent on bravery. Gryffindor
> believed that he should choose the bravest people for his house, and
> the hat tries to do this. But that doesn't stop other people from
> being brave.

Being brave does not make one good. It is recognizing and following
Good that makes one good.  Slytherins don't do this. Slytherins follow
personal ambition.  No House follows Good as well as Gryffindor.  It
seems to be an innate quality for them, the supposed noble chivalry,
lion-hearted thing.

> Anyway, the part of the brave is not to make everyone
> else as brave as they are (how could they?) but to use their courage
> to protect others, as the Cloak does.

Being brave does not lead to protecting others.  James faced Voldemort
wandless.  He was brave, but useless.  Harry said Voldemort's name and
landed the Trio in captivity.  He was brave, but careless.  Harry used
the cloak to undertake great mischief, often thinking he was doing
good.  He was brave, but he was pursuing his own obsessions, not
protecting others per se.  I can only imagine what James Potter used
the cloak for.

But even with the contradictions of how Gryffindors actually
behaved, I think the viewpoint of the books is that Gryffindors were
innately good. They were worthy to accompany Harry on his quest and to
stand by Harry in his "last moments" in the forest, after all. They
were good because they followed Dumbledore and understood the concept
of the Greater Good.

> > Magpie:
> > Why wouldn't the Hat be able look into your head and tell whether
> you have Pureblood? 
> 
> Pippin:
> There's not supposed to be any detectable physical or magical
> difference between people from all-magical families and everyone
> else. If there were, discrimination on that basis wouldn't be
> automatically be racist. It would be perfectly valid to have a House
> reserved for the different needs or abilities of those students, 
> IMO. 

I agree that bloodism is irrational. It is a made-up prejudice,
similar to real-life prejudices based on nothing but imagined
differences, designed to make one group feel superior to another. It
is made up of fear and lies, and justified by bogus fantasies.

> But bloodism in the WW is a bogus concept based on outmoded science,
> like phlogiston, or aether, or the Aryan bloodism which it parodies.
> If no one imagines there's a difference between the blood status of
> one wizard and another, it ought to be impossible for the hat to 
> pick the purebloods out, and Slytherin House will no longer be 
> swayed by that ideology. I understood that's what JKR meant by 
> saying that the pureblood influence was going to be diluted. 

The hat picks out people for whom blood purity is an important
concept, a defining ideal, not people who *are* purebloods because, as
you say, there may be no purebloods in reality.  There are only those
who define themselves as purebloods or aspire to purebloodedness, like
the Malfoys and Blacks, or those who have at a minimum a strong
anti-Muggle prejudice, like Tom Riddle and Snape.  If the person is
ambitious or cunning or inclined to break the rules by studying Dark
Magic, then the person goes to Slytherin.  If the person is bigoted,
but not as a predominant trait, the person could conceivably go to
another house.  Few are actually free of prejudice in the Wizarding
World, it seems.

Pureblood prejudice has nothing to do with actual blood and everything
to do with self-identification and the objectification of others.
Self-identification as special and objectification of others as lesser
were not eliminated in the Wizarding World of the epilogue. Far from
it.  Separation of houses still exists, prejudice based on house
selection still exists, the attitude of superiority to Muggles still
exists -- and in our lauded Gryffindors, no less. The prejudice
against Slytherin House, defined even at the end as the House of the
pureblood, seems not to have been diluted.  

I don't know what JKR meant when she said pureblood *influence* was
going to be diluted.  Maybe the pureblood myth will have less appeal
for the populace after Voldemort's violence.  Maybe it was discredited
as Aryan supremacy was discredited after World War II.  This doesn't
mean the Slytherins are better as a group, or that pureblood prejudice
has disappeared.

> Magpie"
> I think Alla's point still stands that saying "My school is going to
> be very academically challenging so you have to be a certain
> intellectual level to get in" is different than saying "No Jews." 

> Pippin:
> Not in the way you think <g>. You're not supposed to be able to
> increase your IQ by studying, OTOH anybody can become a 
> Jew-by-choice. But I personally as a Jew don't have a problem with a 
> school that excludes Jews because its mission is to teach members of 
> another faith, as long as the intent or the result isn't that Jews  
> receive an inferior education. That's not the case at Hogwarts. No 
> one is saying that Muggleborns at Hogwarts don't get the finest 
> magical education there is.
>
> Pippin
>

You can't change your IQ, perhaps, but you can be identified as having
a lower IQ by being a member of a certain group. Slytherins at
Hogwarts are identified as the house where everyone has the potential
to go bad. Because of that, Slytherins aren't offered the DADA
training that Harry gives to selected students, nor are any Slytherins
we know of offered membership in the Order of the Phoenix -- with the
notable exception of Snape, who nobody but Dumbledore trusted, and
only as far as he could keep Snape under his thumb and in the dark
about what was really going on.  Slytherins have to find other means
to respectability.  Pureblood ideology is a made-up means to achieve it.

I personally think Snape had great potential to be a good person, as
Draco may have had, but how do you explain why they went bad if not
for the fact that the hat recognized bigotry combined with ambition in
them and sorted them into Slytherin House?  I don't agree with the
Slytherin-everyone else divide in HP, but it persisted to the end of
the book, along with its continued pernicious effects.  Why, if the
author didn't think the model had some validity?

lealess




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Tue Jun 24 04:23:41 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:23:41 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3ou7e+cj50@eGroups.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806230950x349ef119g7826427364cfbaf1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g3ou7e+cj50@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806232123q1c0a305bt37e64864e687b602@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183353

Well, we can start with the statements concerning wands and move on to
Harry's invisiblility cloak that does not deteriorate like others do. These
statements are found throughout the series, not just in the last book.

I had a thought just today. There has been a lot of discussion on this list
about how JKR did not deliver what some people expected. No. She did not.
That is absolutely true.

What she did give us is a seven part  story filled with amateur detectives
who put clues together and many times come up with incorrect conclusions
because they allowed their predisposing sets of ideas to lead them.

That's funny, (ha ha funny) because many of JKR's readers did the very same
thing.  Thinking is a good thing. Reading with an open mind that allows the
one writing the story to use his or her imagination to tell the story is
also good. I find that it allows my own creative processes to grow.

I'm just off a very long and difficult week and ready for books and bed!

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From freddykruegerre at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 23 16:10:26 2008
From: freddykruegerre at yahoo.com (Athena)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:10:26 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3lrvq+7nek@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3ohti+l8sl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183354

> > Potioncat:
> > <snip>
> > I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd never be sorted
> > into Slytherin. I don't have the slightest bit of ambition,
> > and I don't think my blood is any better than anyone elses.
> > (Although I am very proud of my Scot-Irish blood!)

> Betsy Hp:
> And that's what makes me cringe. In the end, Slytherin is
> the "racist house."  And I mean, it really truly is, I'm
> not trying to argue (anymore *g*) that JKR was cleverly
> pointing out the ease of falling into prejudice and
> stereotype by setting up an easy to fall into prejudice
> and stereotype that "all Slytherin's are bad -- born that
> way, don't you know."  Instead, yes, they *are* all that
> bad.
<SNIP>

Athena:

I may be in the minority here and lacking the authority
because I am new but someone's got to stand up for Slytherin
house. According to wikipedida "Slytherin house values ambition,
cunning, resourcefulness, and pure blood heritage" I am sorry if
I am very wrong here, but what is wrong with having ambition?
Yes there are some students that used that ambition to do wrong
and evil things. But we don't hear about any student that used
that ambition to revolutionize something. Because Rowling has
clearly demonstrated that she herself is biased (I understand
she's allowed to be) and made it clear that Slytherin=Evil.

All we hear is about the good and righteous Gryffindors.
Because that's the viewpoint of Harry. As per the cunning
and resourcefulness, I think that those qualites would have
shined in DA has anyone bothered to even ASK the Slytherin's
if they'd like to join up. See this is how I see it, all the
houses, yes even fair Hufflepuff and wise Ravenclaw, were
prejudice against Sltytherin, so of course those in that
house closed themselves off. To me it was a protective
measure. How would you feel if you had 75% of the students
hating not who you are but where you come from? I see it as
they didn't get along with the other houses because the other
houses didn't get along with them. When it come to the pride
in their heritage, I am Italian and damn proud of it. I say
without shame that I am a prideful Italian. Does that make me
racist against others? Of course not, we see the Slytherin's
taking pride in their blood, because well it's one thing that
they have over the other houses that hated their house from
the get go. I don't see Harry trying to befriend a Slytherin,
nor do I see him trying to help anyone that doesn't kiss the
ground he walks on.

The other houses were raised to believe that Harry was the
savior of the WW, so I'm guessing that it hurts for Slytherin
house to be hated by such a saint. They are people just like
the Gryffindor's, Ravenclaw's and Hufflepuff's. Yet to me they
are met with derision.

I say it loudly and proudly I am a Slytherin. I have the
ambition in me to want to be a writer and I am pursuing
that route. I was cunning enough to get out of a bad
situation with a guy and have the break-up be his fault.
I was resourceful enough to use all my knowledge to safely
get my friends out of trouble. I am proud of my Italian
heritage. I say that more often then not the Slytherin
house creates more people like me then people like Riddle.

Had to put in my two cents (well more like $3.50) because I
firmly believe Slytherin gets a bad rap.

Athena



From jeopardy18 at comcast.net  Tue Jun 24 04:10:55 2008
From: jeopardy18 at comcast.net (seanmulligan2000)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:10:55 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3mums+a898@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3ps4f+ud2b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183355

> Betsy Hp:
> That's what confuses me.  Why was Godric (and the rest *g*)
> attracted to a racist?  I mean, Salazar wasn't subtle -- he
> out and out stated that as far as he was concerned, certain
> students need not apply.


There's an essay in the files section Russ Griffin that discusses
Salazar Slytherin. It suggests that the books don't give us enough
information about Salazar Slytherin and why he opposed the admission
of muggle-borns.

jeopardy18



From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Tue Jun 24 04:37:00 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:37:00 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
References: <g3itab+27vl@eGroups.com> <00d601c8d3c6$9dac01a0$6401a8c0@homemain>	 <485F9E5F.30901@yahoo.com> <43e41d1e0806230950x349ef119g7826427364cfbaf1@mail.gmail.com> <48602526.2070508@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00a301c8d5b3$f254b8c0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 183356

> CJ (Now):
> I will admit to being incorrect about what "had to happen" in the last
> book. But when the major plot line of HBP consists of Dumbledore
> tracking down horcruxes, all but getting himself killed in the process;
> when the destruction of the horcruxes is absolutely essential to
> defeating Voldemort; and when DD specifically commits that task to Harry
> before dying, I think I can be forgiven for thinking that's what we were
> going to get in book seven. Instead, after spending an *entire book*
> setting up the horcrux plot line, she shunts it aside for a new plot
> line that ultimately goes nowhere. I strongly suspect -- though of
> course I cannot prove -- that if there had been no DH plot line, nary a
> soul would have noticed those "gaping holes".

Shelley now:
CJ, I'm in agreement with you there.  The DH are something new, like she set 
up that pattern that she had to have a new mystery to solve each book, and 
so she had to invent one for this last book, but I seriously think that if 
she had just broke that model, and merely dealt with resolving all the 
Horcruxes, that no one would have noticed anything "missing" from the last 
book. Instead, we might have gotten a full resolution on all the plot 
elements that we did love- like finding out more about Snape so that his 
death didn't seem like such a waste of print, or letting us know what else 
was going on in the Wizarding world during those long camping sessions. I 
really thought the last book would be about the Horcruxes, too, and it's 
almost like they are resolved in afterthought or by mistake- a bit too 
disappointing compared to the story I hoped I would be getting.





From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 04:32:22 2008
From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Happy Smiley)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question #1
In-Reply-To: <g3pi32+6t4e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <199162.29002.qm@web46216.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183357

> CJ:
> ... Dueling Club, when Harry was unaware that he'd been speaking
> parseltongue.
> Any theories as to why that would be?

> Goddlefrood:
> Harry must have been so familiar with Parseltongue without
> knowing it that when he heard it, and spoke it himself, he
> must have thought he was speaking English. Odd though that
> may sound.

Earlier too, Harry has exhibited this inability to consciously
realize parseltongue is being spoken. In HBP, when he goes into
Dumbledore's memory containing the Merope-Gaunt-Morfin-Ministry
official incident, only after Dumbledore points out to him does
Harry realize that Morfin was speaking parseltongue - in fact,
till that point, the ministry official's reactions (indicating
inability to understand Morfin's talk) didn't make much of a
sense to Harry.

I think something similar happened at Bathilda's place too -
Harry never consciously realized that parseltongue was being
spoken.

> kennyg1864:
> *But* what is odd is Hermione's reaction, or lack thereof:
> Why didn't Hermione recognize that it was Parseltongue?
> She's heard Harry speak it on more than one occasion.
> Surely she would do more than just jump, as smart as
> she is. Something like "Harry, what's that hissing
> sound?" :P


Good point! :) I think Hermione has heard Harry speak
parseltongue only once (in CoS, dueling incident). Yet
her reaction *is* odd. I think she was too very scared
and suspense-filled at that moment to apply cool logic
- clutching Harry's arm and Harry's reassurance ("It's
okay") seem to indicate that. And "come" is probably
too short a word even in parseltongue for one to realize
that a *word* was spoken in the first place. LOL.

P.S: And yes, Nagini is a she. :) Actually, Nagini means
"female serpent" in Sanskrit / Hindi (Indian languages).
JKR has used this word to name this character. Hope you
found that information interesting. :)

Cheers,
Joey



From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Jun 24 11:59:52 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:59:52 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3ohti+l8sl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3qnjo+k9tk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183358


> 
> > Betsy Hp:
> > And that's what makes me cringe. In the end, Slytherin is
> > the "racist house."  And I mean, it really truly is, I'm
> > not trying to argue (anymore *g*) that JKR was cleverly
> > pointing out the ease of falling into prejudice and
> > stereotype by setting up an easy to fall into prejudice
> > and stereotype that "all Slytherin's are bad -- born that
> > way, don't you know."  Instead, yes, they *are* all that
> > bad.
> <SNIP>

Potioncat:
In interviews JKR said that there were children of Death Eaters in 
the other houses, not just Slytherin House and she said Slytherins 
fought for Hogwarts in the last battle. Yet she never showed either 
in canon. So I agree, she made Slytherin the racist house.
> 
> Athena: 
> I say it loudly and proudly I am a Slytherin. I have the
> ambition in me to want to be a writer and I am pursuing
> that route. I was cunning enough to get out of a bad
> situation with a guy and have the break-up be his fault.
> I was resourceful enough to use all my knowledge to safely
> get my friends out of trouble. I am proud of my Italian
> heritage. I say that more often then not the Slytherin
> house creates more people like me then people like Riddle.

Potioncat:
Based on what the Sorting Hat says, minus the choosing for Pure 
Blood, Slytherin should be the house of the over achievers. We should 
see club presidents, Head boys, Multiple  top marks on NEWTS, and 
afterwards, we should see famous Healers, important Ministers of 
Magic, spell inventors, etc. 

I think JKR showed a dislike of ambition and intellect in the way she 
showed Slytherin and Ravenclaw. I'm not sure she intended to. I 
personally see nothing wrong with ambition. When I said I had none, I 
meant that within the work place, I have no interest in moving up the 
ladder. I'm very comfortable in my job doing what I do.

I think I snipped too much, but would like to respond to another part 
of Athena's post. I don't think Slytherin House gets a bad rap within 
the books. There were times that Harry looked out at Quidditch games, 
and most of the students were wearing green. So I don't think JKR 
shows a WW distrust of Slytherin, although Gryffindors seem to 
generally distrust them.

I used to defend Slytherin House too, but I thought JKR had other 
plans for them, just like Betsy said in her post at the top.






From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Jun 24 14:03:44 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:03:44 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806232123q1c0a305bt37e64864e687b602@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g3qus0+eaqe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183359

Lynda:
> Well, we can start with the statements concerning wands and move on 
to
> Harry's invisiblility cloak that does not deteriorate like others 
do. These
> statements are found throughout the series, not just in the last 
book.

Magpie:
I don't think they are. Earlier in the series we just know that Harry 
has an invisibility cloak. I don't remember anyone claiming that it 
was a special cloak or didn't disintegrate, since the cloaks 
themselves are rare and we never see another one. And wands, before 
DH, simply choose their master based on qualities they have. We never 
hear about someone else's wand becoming your own because you conquer 
them until DH. Since none of these things ever seemed like questions 
to me before DH, I can't consider them plotholes that would have been 
left had we not gotten the Deathly Hallows story. As far as I can see 
it's only in DH where the Hallows explained anything.

Potioncat:
Based on what the Sorting Hat says, minus the choosing for Pure
Blood, Slytherin should be the house of the over achievers. We should
see club presidents, Head boys, Multiple top marks on NEWTS, and
afterwards, we should see famous Healers, important Ministers of
Magic, spell inventors, etc.

Magpie:
If I were asked who the most ambitious characters in canon were I'd 
say obviously Percy, Hermione and the Twins. All those characters 
have a healthy ambition associated with natural talent plus hard 
work. Percy is the one character who gets a sort of cautionary tale 
about ambition but turns out all right. I think those characters 
demonstrate the "what's wrong with having ambition" idea better than 
the Slytherins who seem to represent ambition through cheating, 
croneyism, exclusive clubs and bigotry. Slytherins seem to be made up 
of sometimes conflicting bad qualities, which is reflected in how 
they're given the trait of ambition and even cunning, but when those 
qualities are needed for good things they are covered by non-
Slytherins, who wind up being better at them in the better ways. 
Though that's somewhat true for the other houses too--Hermione is the 
smartest (but correctly dismisses books and cleverness vs. courage) 
and most hard-working, many Gryffindors are smart, loyal and hard-
working. She didn't go the way of needing a member from each house to 
bring those qualities. Luna's kind of unique in showing up as someone 
from another house (though ostracized in it) who actually winds up on 
the B-team.

Potioncat:
I don't think Slytherin House gets a bad rap within
the books. There were times that Harry looked out at Quidditch games,
and most of the students were wearing green. So I don't think JKR
shows a WW distrust of Slytherin, although Gryffindors seem to
generally distrust them.

Magpie:
Really? I may just be forgetting something, but I far more remember 
games where everyone cheered for Gryffindor against Slytherin. I 
can't remember any time when other houses cheered for Slytherin.

-m




From kennyg1864 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 14:33:55 2008
From: kennyg1864 at yahoo.com (kennyg1864)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:33:55 -0000
Subject: Question #3
Message-ID: <g3r0kj+39d3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183360

How did Harry become "the boy who lived"?

I'm guessing the Daily Prophet had a huge story about the death of 
Voldemort ("You wouldn't believe how many extra copies we had to 
print!"), and then (in a day or so) another one about the death of 
the Potters, and Harry's survival (which itself may have been a later 
story).

But *how did this get out*?  The only ones who knew were DD, 
McGonagall, Hagrid, and Sirius.  All of them knew the importance of 
keeping Harry's whereabouts secret.

And there really wasn't any evidence remaining at Godric's Hollow for 
the inevitable reporters--just his parents' bodies, and a ruined 
second floor.  And a missing baby, but there's no reason to assume he 
survived.  Even if Bathilda dropped by (as a noted historian), she 
wouldn't have known anything more (assuming Hagrid snatched him away 
before she got there).

Possibility #1: Hagrid let it slip later in a bar, like he did with 
Norbert.  Maybe Rita used her charms on him (if she was a reporter in 
1981, that is).

Possibility #2: DD made it known on purpose, although I can't see the 
benefit.  Death Eaters already knew their master was gone.  
Publicizing that an infant was the cause would further humiliate 
them, but again, what's the benefit?

Possibility #3: I've read speculation that during the "missing 24 
hours" Hagrid took Harry to the MoM *before* taking him to Privet 
Drive (so that, I dunno, wizards could examine his scar or 
something). But would Dumbledore have authorized this risky move, 
even as head of the Wizenmagot?

3a. Or perhaps Hagrid took him to St. Mungo's.  It's reasonable that 
a wizard/witch doctor would check out an infant who received the AK 
curse, to make sure he's okay.

In either case, gossip could quickly spread at the MoM or at St. 
Mungo's.

But 3 and 3a assume events that aren't canon.  All that is canon is 
the missing time itself.

Possibility #4: DD had to explain to MoM officials investigating the 
Potter's house, since an infant was now missing.  Maybe he even had 
to make the case for placing the infant with Muggle relatives, 
especially since Harry's godfather was AWOL searching for Wormtail.  
This could also account for part of the missing hours.

But *that* assumes that DD even told the MoM that he knew about 
Harry, or that the MoM even knew that DD was involved.  Heck, for all 
the MoM investigators knew, the infant was vaporized by the AK curse.

OTOH, maybe the "wizard CSI" folks could detect that Hagrid had been 
there, or witnesses saw Hagrid and Sirius at the scene--which would 
lead back to DD.

(geez, now I'm arguing with myself :P )

Other possibilities?

(side note: shouldn't Harry have been known initially as "the baby 
who lived"?  And since there was no news of Harry since then, what's 
the impetus to upgrade the title?  Unless maybe the Daily Prophet did 
an issue each October 31, celebrating Voldemort's demise, and the 
passing of James and Lily)

(side note #2:  I'm surprise with all the interviews and chats, that 
no one has ever asked JKR about where Hagrid was with Harry!)

kennyg1864

(as always, my apologies if this has been covered previously)





From kennyg1864 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 14:39:43 2008
From: kennyg1864 at yahoo.com (kennyg1864)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:39:43 -0000
Subject: My nomination for Saddest DH Scene Upon the Second Reading
Message-ID: <g3r0vf+6sk9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183361

Clearly there were sad scenes when we first read DH--Hedwig, Snape, 
Fred, Lupin and Tonks, Colin Creevey.

But on the *second* reading, when Harry sees Tonks and asks about 
Teddy: "I left him with my mom".

And I realized that was the last time that mother and child would see 
each other.

*sniff*

kennyg1864, who always sheds a tear at "That'll do, Pig.  That'll do."




From kennyg1864 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 13:51:45 2008
From: kennyg1864 at yahoo.com (kennyg1864)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:51:45 -0000
Subject: Question #2
Message-ID: <g3qu5h+e3to@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183362

I've been reading about the night of October 31, 1981 (since until 
recently I hadn't heard about (or noticed!) the "missing 24 hours")

But that's not what I'm here to talk about... (to paraphrase Arlo 
Guthrie)

This question is about the next day, and Sirius Black...

Why was he imprisoned without a trial?  Even "obviously guilty" wizards 
like Barty Jr had a trial.  Imprisoned solely on the word of Cornelius 
Fudge?  Who was a minor MoM official, *not* the Minister, at the time?  
And the *hearsay* evidence of the Muggles present? Oh, and a finger.  
Which, one would think, could be magically detected to have been 
severed with a wand, not an explosion.

(side note:  Does the wizarding world have their own version of 
CSI? :P )

Clearly we couldn't have the events of PoA without this version of 
events, but..dayum.

Is this a large plot error on JKR's part?  

kennyg1864




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 14:50:21 2008
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:50:21 -0000
Subject: Question #3
In-Reply-To: <g3r0kj+39d3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3r1jd+4ri4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183363

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kennyg1864" <kennyg1864 at ...> 
wrote:

> But *how did this get out*?  The only ones who knew were DD, 
> McGonagall, Hagrid, and Sirius.  All of them knew the importance of 
> keeping Harry's whereabouts secret.
<snip>

> Possibility #2: DD made it known on purpose, although I can't see 
the 
> benefit.  Death Eaters already knew their master was gone.  
> Publicizing that an infant was the cause would further humiliate 
> them, but again, what's the benefit?

lizzyben:

This gets my vote. The entire wizarding world knew about the "boy who 
lived" within hours after the Potters' death. Only DD can manage that 
level of publicity & propaganda.

kenny:
> Other possibilities?
> <snip> (side note #2:  I'm surprise with all the interviews and 
chats, that 
> no one has ever asked JKR about where Hagrid was with Harry!)
> 
> kennyg1864

lizzyben:

Well, actually this question was brought up in an interview w/JKR, 
and she said that she never noticed that the 24 hours were missing at 
all. Maths strikes again. So it seems like the real answer is just a 
continuity error on JKR's part. But of course people can still 
theorize much more interesting answers.


lizzyben




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 14:54:15 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:54:15 -0000
Subject: Question #2
In-Reply-To: <g3qu5h+e3to@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3r1qn+bjtc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183364

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kennyg1864" <kennyg1864 at ...> 
wrote:
<SNIP>
>> This question is about the next day, and Sirius Black...
> 
> Why was he imprisoned without a trial?  Even "obviously guilty" 
wizards 
> like Barty Jr had a trial.  <SNIP>> 
> (side note:  Does the wizarding world have their own version of 
> CSI? :P )
> 
> Clearly we couldn't have the events of PoA without this version of 
> events, but..dayum.
> 
> Is this a large plot error on JKR's part?  


Alla:

OOOOOOO, Sirius. No, to answer your question I do not think that this 
is a large plot error on JKR's part. I believe that this is rather 
showing of what kind of "justice" system WW has and one of the 
reasons why I would never want to live in WW had this world been real.

Now if you will ask me whether Dumbledore's behavior during those 
events makes me want to strangle him and whether I think his behavior 
does not make whole lot of sense, the answer would be yes :)

But heee, Sirius had some parody of trial (IMO) without him being 
present that is.

Remember hearing where Dumbledore "gave evidence that Sirius was a 
secret keeper"? I am putting it in quotations not because I am 
quoting, but because it is clear that the evidence was not really a 
true evidence.

Welcome to the list, I am enjoying your posts very very much.

Alla




From kennyg1864 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 15:06:44 2008
From: kennyg1864 at yahoo.com (kennyg1864)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:06:44 -0000
Subject: Question #3
In-Reply-To: <g3r1jd+4ri4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3r2i4+5rvn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183365

> lizzyben:
> 
> This gets my vote. The entire wizarding world knew about the "boy who 
> lived" within hours after the Potters' death. 
 
Which book was this in?  I just re-read the first few chapters of 
SS/PS, and although all the wizards knew of Voldemort's death, none 
mentioned the Potters' death, or Harry's survival.  "TBWL" comes up 
only when Hagrid tells Harry 10 years later, along with the greetings 
of those in the Leaky Cauldron.

I did find it a bit creepy that they were celebrating Voldemort's death 
with fireworks and such, yet James and Lily had died.


> lizzyben:
> 
> Well, actually this question was brought up in an interview w/JKR, 
> and she said that she never noticed that the 24 hours were missing at 
> all. Maths strikes again. So it seems like the real answer is just a 
> continuity error on JKR's part. But of course people can still 
> theorize much more interesting answers.

I kinda thought that might be the case (mistake on JKR's part).  
Although I don't think it's really a maths thing like with Bill and 
Charlie's ages.  It's more of a logic thing, ie "If McGonagall was 
sitting on the wall all day (after Hagrid told her about Privet Drive), 
where was Hagrid since the night before?"

Then again I guess they are similar, in the sense that JKR may not have 
done timelines much (on either a year basis or day basis :P )


kennyg1864, who clearly tries to fit events into boxes, where perhaps 
wizarding events don't belong :P








From bgrugin at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 16:26:39 2008
From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:26:39 -0000
Subject: My nomination for Saddest DH Scene Upon the Second Reading
In-Reply-To: <g3r0vf+6sk9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3r77v+3ndu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183366

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kennyg1864" <kennyg1864 at ...> wrote:
>
> Clearly there were sad scenes when we first read DH--Hedwig, Snape, 
> Fred, Lupin and Tonks, Colin Creevey.
> 
> But on the *second* reading, when Harry sees Tonks and asks about 
> Teddy: "I left him with my mom".
> 
> And I realized that was the last time that mother and child would see 
> each other.
> 
> *sniff*
> 
> kennyg1864, who always sheds a tear at "That'll do, Pig.  That'll do."
>


MusicalBetsy here:
I agree with you about the line that Tonks says - it is so sad on
retrospect.  But what is the quote about Pig from?  I don't remember it.




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Tue Jun 24 16:58:59 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:58:59 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <00a301c8d5b3$f254b8c0$6401a8c0@homemain>
References: <g3itab+27vl@eGroups.com> <00d601c8d3c6$9dac01a0$6401a8c0@homemain>
	 <485F9E5F.30901@yahoo.com>
	 <43e41d1e0806230950x349ef119g7826427364cfbaf1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48602526.2070508@yahoo.com> <00a301c8d5b3$f254b8c0$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806240958w450e280fg41fd4d6deb1ffe74@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183367

CJ (Now):
> I will admit to being incorrect about what "had to happen" in the last
> book. But when the major plot line of HBP consists of Dumbledore
> tracking down horcruxes, all but getting himself killed in the process;
> when the destruction of the horcruxes is absolutely essential to
> defeating Voldemort; and when DD specifically commits that task to Harry
> before dying, I think I can be forgiven for thinking that's what we were
> going to get in book seven. Instead, after spending an *entire book*
> setting up the horcrux plot line, she shunts it aside for a new plot
> line that ultimately goes nowhere. I strongly suspect -- though of
> course I cannot prove -- that if there had been no DH plot line, nary a
> soul would have noticed those "gaping holes".

Lynda:

I get your point.  Mine is that the horcruxes were destroyed. Every single
one of them!!!! Not the way I thought they might be, but they were. It is a
common plot in fantasy literature for the questors to camp in the wilderness
on their journey--why would I expect HP to be different? It is also common
in fantasy literature for the questors to hunt various objects. Again, why
should I be surprised that this was part of the HP saga?
It's a very long series, into which many supporting and minor characters
were added. Would it have been nice to see how the ended up after the
story's conclusion. Yes. Was it necessary to the plot? Absolutely not. And
it would have necessitated a volume so large that it would make transporting
it more than a little difficult.  (That's personal--I read on the bus and
some of the HP's are a little hefty to handle already). And I still don't
see how the DH plotline goes nowhere--seems to me that it works nicely into
the rest of the series. The horcruses are destroyed, Voldemort is
vanquished, and on top of everything else we learn a little of the the
legends and folklore of Rowling's wizarding world.

Lynda

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 18:10:17 2008
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:10:17 -0000
Subject: Chapter Discussion 22/ talking portraits / Did Snape murder?
In-Reply-To: <g349ur+rogi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3rda9+s6n6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183368

Beatrice: Okay so I am really late on this response, but these are 
great questions and I finally have the time to sit down and respond...

Discussion Questions:
1) Why does Hermione do her best to protect Xenophilius from the
Death Eaters? Is it only because of her feelings of friendship for
Luna? Or did she, like Harry, recognize his desperation to save his
child?

Beatrice: Hermione pities him and I think recognizes that not 
everyone is capable of the same kind of bravery and loyalty that HRH 
display.  Also, I think that she is incredibly compassionate as 
displayed by her anguish over the treatment of house elves, etc. The 
trio all seem to struggle with the enormity of their task, the 
brutality of the world around them and their own reluctance to commit 
murder or cause irrevocable harm to others.

2) Why does Hermione consider the trips to Godric's Hollow and the
Lovegood household "a waste of time"?

Beatrice: As other posters also indicated: Hermione has an incredible 
tunnel vision.  Finding Horcruxes is almost like a school assignment, 
Hermione is bent on completing the required work and won't / can't 
deviate.  Oddly, Trelawney is one of the first people to point this 
out (although it is also remarked upon by Xeno, Dumbledore and even 
Snape), Hermione is a by the book girl it serves the trio well, but 
it also proves to be a stumbling block at times. (More on this later)

3) Harry realizes that his "talk of living with dead people" had
scared of Hermione. Why is living with dead people comforting to
Harry and yet frightening to Hermione?

Beatrice: Harry has lived his whole life with ghosts in one way or 
another.  He isn't afraid of death (one of the ways he is the 
antithesis of LV).  Harry has faced it and he knows that a death is 
the only end to his journey.  Hermione on the other hand hasn't lived 
this way and has never really confronted her own mortality her focus 
is on keeping the trio alive (one of the reasons she is probably 
focused on things like protective spells around the campsite, etc.

4) Why is Harry able to put the story together so quickly? It says
his "imagination was racing ahead, far beyond Ron and Hermione's." Is
it imagination, experience, or something else that allows Harry to
make the intuitive leaps that other cannot?

Carol responds:
Good question! Intuitive leaps aren't common for Harry, to say the
least. Probably, his mind has dwelt on the upcoming conflict with
Voldemort and the question of what the objects that the Trio inherited
from DD could mean for so long that he's finally able to put the
pieces together (rather like DD connecting the memories in the
Pensieve and finally, belatedly, realizing that "Moody" is Barty
Crouch Jr.). (Snip)

Beatrice: I don't have too much to say on this, but I did want to 
disagree slightly with what Carol is saying here.  I agree that Harry 
is dwelling on these issues more than the other two are and that 
makes him more likely to make this connection, but I think that Harry 
of the three is prone to intuitive leaps.  This is precisely what 
makes Harry so uniquely suited to defeat LV, because he doesn't over-
think things like Hermione. He acts impulsively and makes a lot of 
intuitive leaps through out the novels which helps him to survive, 
save others and generally figure out what the heck is going on when 
others can't.  Here is a list of a few examples (although please note 
that I am not including page numbers as I don't have my books with 
me):

SS/PS: Harry surmises that the Gringott's vault Hagrid emptied was 
the breached vault, Harry realizes the connection between the 
dragon's egg Hagrid wins and getting past Fluffy, Harry knows how to 
get the stone out of the mirror and how to defeat Quirrell.

CoS: Harry realizes that Moaning Myrtle was the one fatality of the 
Basilisk; Harry finds the chamber and figures out how to open it.  He 
also knows instinctively how to destroy the diary.

PoA: Harry knows that the sender of his Firebolt is a friend, He 
figures out that he and Hermione need to save Buckbeak, before they 
save Sirius; He knows that he has to cast the Patronus to save 
himself, Sirius, et al from the Dementors and he realizes that his 
father was a stag, just like his patronus.

GoF: He trusts Krum, even though he is in Durmstrang and recognizes 
that Krum is bewitched in the maze; Although he relies heavily on the 
knowledge of other people in this particular book, this novel is 
distinctly different from earlier texts 


DH: Harry figures out that the Deathly Hallows are real; he also 
decides ultimately NOT to pursue them; He knows instinctively that 
one of the Horcruxes is at Hogwarts ? which Hermione refuses to 
believe until the end; Harry figures out the RAB mystery; He knows 
that he can't fight LV in the forest, that he simply has to give 
himself over to death; 

IMO ? Harry's intuition lets him down rarely ? although usually it is 
when he is dealing with Snape.  He is blinded by Snape's 
vindictiveness and his own bias.


5) When Harry realizes that Voldemort must also want the Elder Wand,
it "extinguishes" all of his hope and happiness. Why?

Beatrice: Well, if LV gains the `unbeatable' wand how will Harry 
defeat him?

6) If Harry is right, Dumbledore did not tell him the secret to being
the master of Death because he needed Harry to discover it for
himself. Does this agree with Dumbledore's previous treatment of
Harry? How would Harry be different if Dumbledore did tell him what
he needed rather than letting Harry work it out for himself? What
role do Ron and Hermione play in his discoveries?

Beatrice: I think so, yes.  Dumbledore is quite please in SS/PS that 
Harry worked things out for himself.  Dumbledore never puts up any 
roadblocks or at least never any really big ones to prevent Harry 
from solving the mystery and putting things together.  I don't think 
that Dumbledore could tell him about this, because Dumbledore is 
hoping that Harry will find out, but will either find out too late or 
will realize that like the mirror the Deathly Hallows is more of an 
illusion than reality.  Like the Mirror, Harry needs to understand 
their power and importance, but he has to reject the temptation of 
the object, resist the urge to become master of them, in order to 
understand how they work and how they are ultimately flawed.

7) Harry wishes his scar would burn again because "for the first time
ever, he and Voldemort were united in wanting the very same thing."
When his visions do return, they are blurred. Why are the visions
different now than they have been in the past?

Beatrice: Perhaps they are blurred because Harry unconsciously has 
already rejected this quest and Harry and LV are now pursuing 
different goals so there is a greater distance between them? Or: 
Harry seems to gain access to LV's thoughts when LV allows his 
emotions (anger, hatred, etc.) to get the better of him.  Perhaps it 
is just and indication that LV for this brief period is attempting to 
get a hold of himself.

8) Harry feels that Ron and Hermione are obsessed with the horcuxes.
She accuses him of being obsessed with the Hallows and tells him that
they are "the ones trying to do what Dumbledore wanted us to do!" Why
are they at an impasse over the way to proceed? Why does Harry "give
up on her"?
Beatrice: See my comments on Hermione above.

9) As Harry retreats into his own imagination, Ron starts to take
charge. Is Ron only capable of leadership because Harry is distracted
or is it something else?

Beatrice: Ron is capable of leadership, but he is also kind of lazy 
about it (IMO).  It is easy for him to let others blaze the trail.  
Perhaps this is a feature of having so many strong personalities in 
his family and being one of the youngest.

10)If Harry is so determined that finding the Elder Wand is the way
to proceed, why do they waste months without making any real
progress? What, if anything, is achieved in these long months of
camping?

Beatrice: I don't think that he is determined to find the Wand.  I 
think he simply realizes that it is out there and is tempted by it 
(although he seems more tempted by the ring).  The DH are convenient 
for Harry to temporarily focus on while he isn't making progress 
looking for Horcruxes.   Frankly, they would have made quicker 
progress if Hermione hadn't dismissed his theory that one Horcrux was 
at Hogwarts. 

I wasn't as frustrated with the whole camping thing.  I thought that 
the isolation was pretty interesting and really underscored the 
danger that they were in.  I think it also brings home the idea 
that "neither can live
"  Harry really can't have any kind of a life 
under these circumstances.  I think also that it is one of the only 
choices for the trio.  They really can't stay with other people, 
because it will put them in danger and many of those who die seem to 
be the ones who try to crawl in a hole and stay there.  HRH move 
around and try to be as unpredictable as possible which helps them 
survive.  It also serves to toughen Harry and help him to grow up ? 
but more on this during the chapter discussion on Shell Cottage.







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Jun 24 21:11:27 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:11:27 -0000
Subject: Question #3
In-Reply-To: <g3r0kj+39d3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3rntv+ehpv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183369

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kennyg1864" <kennyg1864 at ...> wrote:
> Possibility #2: DD made it known on purpose, although I can't see the 
> benefit.  Death Eaters already knew their master was gone.  
> Publicizing that an infant was the cause would further humiliate 
> them, but again, what's the benefit?
> 

Pippin:

Voldemort would know that Harry had survived, so trying to conceal
this fact from the WW would have little benefit. But Dumbledore would
consider it of great benefit for people to know that Voldemort's
downfall was not a Dark Wizard of greater power but an innocent babe.
Of course some people were not convinced and thought Harry must have
had some kind of dark power.

Pippin




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Jun 24 21:27:25 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:27:25 -0000
Subject: Question #3
In-Reply-To: <g3r2i4+5rvn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3rort+dckl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183370

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kennyg1864" <kennyg1864 at ...> wrote:

lizzyben:
> > This gets my vote. The entire wizarding world knew about the "boy who 
> > lived" within hours after the Potters' death. 

kennyg1864:  
> Which book was this in?  I just re-read the first few chapters of 
> SS/PS, and although all the wizards knew of Voldemort's death, none 
> mentioned the Potters' death, or Harry's survival.  "TBWL" comes up 
> only when Hagrid tells Harry 10 years later, along with the greetings 
> of those in the Leaky Cauldron.

Geoff:
You've somehow skipped over a large chunk of the opening chapter of 
"Philosopher's Stone":

'Professor McGonagall shot a sharp look at Dumbledore and said, "The 
owls are nothing to the rumours that are flying around. You know what 
everyone's saying? About why he's disappeared? About what finally 
stopped him?"....

...It was plain that whatever 'everyone' was saying, she was not going to 
believe it until Dumbledore told her it was true....

"What they're saying," she pressed on, "is that last night Voldemort turned 
up in Godric's Hollow. He went to find the Potters. The rumour is that 
Lily and James Potter are - are - that they're dead."

Dumbledore bowed his head. Professor McGonagall gasped. "Lily and 
James... I can't believe it... I didn't want to believe it,,, Oh, Albus..."

Dumbledore reached out and patted her on the shoulder. "I know... I 
know..." he said heavily.

Professor McGonagall voice trembled as she went on. That's not all. 
They're saying that he tried to kill the Potter's son, Harry. But - he 
couldn't. He couldn't kill that little boy. No one knows why, or how, 
but they're saying that he couldn't kill Harry Potter,  Voldemort's 
power somehow broke - and that's why he's gone."

Dumbledore nodded glumly.

"It's - it's true?" faltered Professor McGonagall. "After all he's done...
all the people he's killed... he couldn't kill a little boy? It's just 
astounding... of all the things to stop him... but how in the name of 
heaven did Harry survive?"

"We can only guess." said Dumbledore. "We may never know."'

(PS "The Boy Who LIved" from pp.14/15 UK edition)

It's very obvious from that extract that Professor McGonagall had 
picked up the salient points of what had happened from other sources 
that Dumbledore, so it /was/ common knowledge.

And just to underline the question of Harry's 'title', I quote again:

'Harry Potter rolled over inside his blankets without waking up. One 
small hand closed on the letter beside him and he slept on, not knowing 
that he was special, not knowing that he was famous....

...He couldn't know that at this very moment, people meeting in secret 
all over the country were holding up their glasses and saying in hushed 
voices: "To Harry Potter - the boy who lived!"'

(PS "The Boy Who LIved" p.18 UK edition)

It's quite definitely there in canon.







From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 21:30:22 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:30:22 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806232123q1c0a305bt37e64864e687b602@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806230950x349ef119g7826427364cfbaf1@mail.gmail.com>	 <g3ou7e+cj50@eGroups.com> <43e41d1e0806232123q1c0a305bt37e64864e687b602@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4861676E.5000902@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183371

Lynda Cordova:
Well, we can start with the statements concerning wands and move on to
Harry's invisiblility cloak that does not deteriorate like others do. These
statements are found throughout the series, not just in the last book.

CJ:
There are *lots* of statements about wands (this *is* a wizarding 
series, after all :-) ). Which ones, specifically, were Hallowed hints?
And the closest my (increasingly fallible) memory can come to statements 
about "Harry's invisiblility cloak that does not deteriorate like others 
do" prior to DH is Ron's initial reaction which ran something like, 
"Wow, and it's in really good condition, too!" There were certainly many 
more obvious plot lines that were dropped than such clues-in-hindsight.

Lynda:
There has been a lot of discussion on this list about how JKR did not
deliver what some people expected....What she did give us is a seven part
story filled with amateur detectives who put clues together and many times
come up with incorrect conclusions because they allowed their predisposing
sets of ideas to lead them.

CJ:
Now I think you're being unfairly judgmental toward those of us who find 
her work less than perfect. The fact that we stayed with the series 
through seven books is, I think, testimony to the fact that we *were* 
willing to allow her to lead us where she wanted to go. And in almost 
every case, I found where JKR wanted to go much more entertaining than 
my own expectations.

Go back four or five years through the archives of HPFG and you'll find 
lots of people making wrong prognostications about what future books 
would bring. What you won't find is a lot of complaining that we didn't 
get what we were expecting.

Personally, I found the series really rocked my world through the first 
five books before it began deteriorating. My criticism of the DH plot 
line has nothing to do with my expectations; it has everything to do 
with finding it a major distraction with very little payoff.

Shelley:
if she had just ... dealt with resolving all the Horcruxes, that no one 
would have noticed anything "missing" from the last book. Instead, we 
might have gotten a full resolution on all the plot elements that we did 
love

CJ:
There are *many* things that could have been resolved (or been resolved 
more satisfactorily) in the pages occupied by the DH plot line. I think 
a *lot* of folk would have liked to see a better, or fuller, revelation 
of the Snape backstory, as you mentioned. She could have greatly 
expanded the epilogue. And certainly the whole horcrux chase was highly 
unsatisfactory.

Lynda:
Mine is that the horcruxes were destroyed. Every single one of them!!!!

CJ:
But of course they were. JKR had already established they had to be. It 
was, as I said, the pacing that suffered. After setting their discovery 
and destruction up as such a major plot point in HBP, Harry spends so 
much of DH vacillating on whether to pursue horcruxes or Hallows,
JKR just simply runs out of time (plotwise) and pages to deal with it. 
In the end, she had to locate half the horcruxes *at Hogwarts* (???), 
and even then at least two (or was it three? I've forgotten) were 
destroyed *off page*. Further, after establishing in HBP how utterly 
difficult they were to locate and destroy (finding and destroying *one* 
horcrux took Dumbledore an entire book and all but cost him his life), 
in DH half the horcruxes just dropped into our heroes laps, all but 
dropping dead of their own accord to boot. Pacing, once again.

Lynda:
It is a
common plot in fantasy literature for the questors to camp in the 
wilderness on their journey ... It is also common in fantasy literature 
for the questors to hunt various objects.

CJ:
Camping(?) in the wilderness. Well, perhaps. Not spinning their wheels. 
And it wasn't that Harry & Co. didn't have objects a-plenty to hunt 
already. It was that they spent half the book not hunting them.

Lynda:
And I still don't see how the DH plotline goes nowhere--seems to me that 
it works nicely into the rest of the series.

CJ:
"Works nicely into" and "contributes meaningfully" are horses of an 
entirely different color. The whole DH plotline goes nowhere because it 
makes no meaningful contribution to the advancement of the main plot, 
which ultimately does turn out exactly as we were led to expect: the 
destruction of the horcruxes and a final Harry/LV showdown. And to 
*that*, the Hallows contributed in no meaningful way; red herrings, by 
any other name.

CJ




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 21:37:20 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:37:20 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question #2
In-Reply-To: <g3qu5h+e3to@eGroups.com>
References: <g3qu5h+e3to@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <48616910.30006@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183372

kennyg1864:
Why was he imprisoned without a trial? Is this a large plot error on 
JKR's part?

CJ:
"Large" error? Probably not. The point was that Sirius had to be 
imprisoned unjustly. She could easily have substituted "imprisoned after 
a show trial" without otherwise altering the plot a whit. I'd just chalk 
it up as another example of Rowling's tendency to not be bothered by 
details.

--CJ




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 21:43:06 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:43:06 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)/Slytherins
 are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g3qus0+eaqe@eGroups.com>
References: <g3qus0+eaqe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <48616A6A.4010708@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183373

Magpie:
Earlier in the series we just know that Harry
has an invisibility cloak. I don't remember anyone claiming that it
was a special cloak or didn't disintegrate, since the cloaks
themselves are rare and we never see another one.

CJ:
The closest we come, I think, is Ron's comment upon first seeing the 
Cloak about what great condition it's in. This suggests (but doesn't 
require) that Ron's seen other cloaks. However, Ron's comment is only 
otherwise significant in hindsight.

--CJ




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 21:59:27 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:59:27 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question #3
In-Reply-To: <g3r1jd+4ri4@eGroups.com>
References: <g3r1jd+4ri4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <48616E3F.8060406@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183374

lizzyben:
Maths strikes again.

Not to resurrect old discussions (or was that over in OT?) but is 
"maths" singular or plural?

As to Harry becoming the "Boy Who Lives", since there were no living eye 
witnesses to the events in Godric's Hollow (save Harry and Voldie, and 
neither was in a position to give testimony), one wonders how even DD 
knew Harry had survived an AK -- since no one had ever managed it 
before, it's not like he had prior experience to guide him -- let alone 
the entire WW knowing it within hours.

One might easily imagine DD deducing even that unlikely conclusion from 
the evidence at the scene, except for his statement to McGonagall to the 
effect "We might never know" how Harry survived.

But since DD was the only one on the scene who could possibly have 
pieced together what happened, and the only one in the WW save Hagrid 
who knew about Harry's scar, it's hard to escape the conclusion that he 
was the source of all the rumors that eventually fell into McGonagall's 
ears.

CJ




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 22:03:56 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:03:56 -0000
Subject: Epilogue/ Horcruxes and Hallows
In-Reply-To: <4861676E.5000902@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g3rr0c+jst0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183375

> CJ:
<SNIP>
>> Go back four or five years through the archives of HPFG and you'll 
find 
> lots of people making wrong prognostications about what future 
books 
> would bring. What you won't find is a lot of complaining that we 
didn't 
> get what we were expecting.

Alla:

Just an aside, but IMO this has everything to do with the fact that 
we did not know whether we would get what we expected; the canon was 
not closed yet. I firmly believe that no matter how series would have 
been ended there would have been plenty of complaining. Nobody has to 
agree with me, but the more series I am finishing reading the more 
confirmation of this I get (my view of course).

And I am still to read the series as popular as Potter books which 
IMO have the most amount of fans.

There could be no complaining about what future holds for Snape, 
since we did not know what exactly it would be, right?

I mean, quite a few people for example predicted Snape and Lily, and 
quite a few (including me) were feeling very nauseous while imagining 
Snape pinning after that mane of red hair. Now, even though I 
eventually could see that it was coming in the clues ( and yes, have 
my preDH posts to prove it ;)), that did not make me feel any better 
about it.

BUT I could not know for sure, that it was coming, I was fairly 
positive, but I did not know, so how could I complain that I am not 
happy?

Now the way she did it certainly made me happy but I did not expect 
to be.

And the ending of the series? I certainly expected something more 
fascinating initially and if I would be told that the ending as it 
happened would make me so happy, I would be so very surprised.


No, I respect quite a lot all the criticizing, and believe me there 
were plenty of series with which ending I had an urge to complain and 
did so, but still I will never understand what the fact that JKR did 
not finish the story as one wanted her to ( and before you say so, I 
**know** that you are not saying it, as I said, I am responding with 
aside from the topic) has anything to do with her worth as a writer.


CJ: 
> Personally, I found the series really rocked my world through the 
first 
> five books before it began deteriorating. My criticism of the DH 
plot 
> line has nothing to do with my expectations; it has everything to 
do 
> with finding it a major distraction with very little payoff.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Okay, I perfectly see where you are coming from then. I mean, see not 
as in I agree at all, but certainly if I saw the ground for this 
criticism, this is to me the most understandable( Ugh, not as I can 
judge valid and not valid criticism) criticism of the writer, the 
story did not satisfy you, it did not suck you in, etc.

Me - ALL my expectations were paid off, period, full stop. But major 
part of them was not paid off in the way I imagined.

I wanted Harry alive, that is the only thing that happened precisely 
what I wanted.

I wanted Snape apologizing to Harry, begging for his forgiveness. Did 
it happen? NO, and still I was happy.

I wanted evil Snape or at least Life debt Snape, I was sooo hoping 
and did I get it? Nope, but the Snape that she portrayed satisfied me 
very much.

Okay, I guess the fact that she killed off so many adults and would 
not even let Lupin be alive and enjoy happiness with his son I would 
love to happen differently, but scene in the forest satisfied my 
longing to see Marauders young and joyful, even only in the afterlife.


I can go on and on.

Now, horcruxes and hallows, I guess I do have something to say after 
all.

See I **hated** horcruxes, hated, hated, hated and I also agree with 
you that I did not see much clues about Hallows either.

But I never expected the story to be about horcruxes or about 
hallows, if that makes sense.

Let me try to explain, to me horcruxes, hallows were nothing more 
than technicalities, to some extent superficial means with which JKR 
will tell story about people in Potterverse. I am not asking you to 
agree with me, but as much as I hated horcruxes per se, I certainly 
understood before DH that horcruxes are great technical means to tell 
the story about Harry's sacrifice and while I of course was never 
sure that Harry is a horcrux, I certainly thought it was a 
possibility precisely for that reason.

And yes, all other horcruxes could drop in our heroes lap or be 
destroyed right away, I believe that the main reason she brought them 
in is to make Harry one.

Hallows, well, I hear what Linda is saying, I do believe that it is 
possible that she wanted to bring them in right away from earlier 
books, but even if she did not, I totally understand why she would 
want to make them technical means to talk about temptations of power, 
temptations of immortality and if you are going to tell me that you 
see no clues in the earlier books about temptations of power and 
temptations of immortality, I am going to strongly disagree.

I do not believe that she ever intended to story be **about** either 
Horcruxes or Hallows, if that makes sense.


JMO,

Alla





From kennyg1864 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 21:32:20 2008
From: kennyg1864 at yahoo.com (kennyg1864)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:32:20 -0000
Subject: Question #3
In-Reply-To: <g3rntv+ehpv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3rp55+trlr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183376


> Pippin:
>
> Voldemort would know that Harry had survived, so trying to conceal
> this fact from the WW would have little benefit.

Two issues with this:

1. There wasn't any way for LV to communicate this knowledge to anyone. 
For the next 10 years he possessed the bodies of animals.  *Maybe* he
could magically get one to speak, but AFAIK all the Death Eaters thought
he was dead and gone for that time.  Until Quirrell came along, he was
pretty powerless.

(and actually I wonder if LV knew that Harry survived (had it not been
widely publicized, that is).  From his point of view, his AK curse
rebounded and he was a barely-alive shell.  He may not have been aware
of the infant Harry surviving.  For all he knew, they were both
"killed".  He may have discovered it only from reading it in the Daily
Prophet  [:p] )

2. Concealing Harry's *whereabouts* was one of DD's objectives. 
Publicizing the legend of "the Boy Who Lived" seems to work against this
objective.

Pippin:
> But Dumbledore would
> consider it of great benefit for people to know that Voldemort's
> downfall was not a Dark Wizard of greater power but an innocent babe.

I sort of see your point, but did they really need more inspiration once
they knew LV was dead and gone?  What is the additional benefit? 
Especially when weighed against the risk to Harry.  (I"m assuming that
DD knew that LV survived in some form, and knew there was a possibility
of his return, and the risk to Harry)


> kennyg1864:
> > Which book was this in? I just re-read the first few chapters of
> > SS/PS, and although all the wizards knew of Voldemort's death, none
> > mentioned the Potters' death, or Harry's survival. "TBWL" comes up
> > only when Hagrid tells Harry 10 years later, along with the
greetings
> > of those in the Leaky Cauldron.
>
> Geoff:
> You've somehow skipped over a large chunk of the opening chapter of
> "Philosopher's Stone":
<SNIP the quote, go UPTHREAD to read it>


Um, I have the US edition.  And that's my story and I'm sticking to it
[:))]

Boy did I totally miss that.  That's what I get for re-reading the SS/PS
chapters while my SO is FINALLY reading DH (she's about 1/3 the way
through) and deciding which of her questions I can answer while not
giving too much away.  [:p]

(she has a really good excuse for the long delay)

So I'm guessing DD made it known through a lot of Owl-mails, or a
special edition of the Prophet.

Begs a question though...since wizards don't have "fellytones", how do
they gossip/spread rumors?  Apparating to your wizard neighbor, and
knocking on the door?  (doesn't leave much room for privacy...)  I mean,
sure, there's the wizard pubs, but how does "house-to-house" gossip
spread?

It is odd to me that a 1-year old infant would be called "the boy who
lived" and not "the baby who lived".   Is that a UK thing?  In the US
one normally wouldn't call him a "little boy" until he's walking.
Although Harry was 1 yr 3 mos by then, so he probably was walking.  So
maybe I should just stop now before I embarrass myself further.  [:)]

kennyg1864, who wants to retitle this thread "Question #Oops"




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Jun 24 22:21:09 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:21:09 -0000
Subject: Question #3
In-Reply-To: <g3rp55+trlr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3rs0l+3gc4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183377

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kennyg1864" <kennyg1864 at ...> wrote:
kennyg1864:
> It is odd to me that a 1-year old infant would be called "the boy who
> lived" and not "the baby who lived".   Is that a UK thing?  In the US
> one normally wouldn't call him a "little boy" until he's walking.
> Although Harry was 1 yr 3 mos by then, so he probably was walking.  So
> maybe I should just stop now before I embarrass myself further.  [:)]

Geoff:
Why odd?

I became  a grandfather for the first time last year and I say to people 
"My daughter has had a little boy." If you refer to "the baby who lived", 
then it begs the question "Boy or girl?" unless you happen to have 
known the Potters.






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Jun 24 23:52:02 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:52:02 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3pasb+t58p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3s1b2+t0ll@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183378

> Betsy Hp:
> I'm not talking about segregation (I'm not that wide-eyed *g*).  

Pippin:

But segregation is what Salazar was all about. IIRC we're never told
that Salazar  advocated violence or terrorism against Muggles or
Muggleborns. Obviously the potential was there, as signified by the
Chamber, but no one knew that. 


There was "dueling and the clash of friend on friend" but no one ever
knew for sure that the Chamber even existed until Riddle opened it. 

Once they'd workd out the house compromise, there's no canon that any
of the Founders  objected to Slytherin's desire to choose his own
students as he saw fit. They  enshrined his criteria forever in the
Sorting Hat along with their own, so why would they object after
Salazar had departed? According to the Sorting Hat, the quarrel which
finally divided the school wasn't about racism in any form, it was
about which of the Founders should be in control, and all of them were
contending. 

I can't recall  the slightest evidence that any Slytherin until
Voldemort's day favored outlawry. One Araminta Melliflua tried to ram
through a bill *legalizing* Muggle-hunting -- no rebel she.

Slughorn is completely horrified that Riddle would seriously speculate
about the advantages of killing someone.  Whatever Slytherin values
were in those days, they didn't include murder.

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> You know of a venerable and well-thought of school that houses 
> students in a "Ku Klux Klan" dormitory, where the values and belief-
> systems of the Klan are taught and encouraged? 

Pippin:
Not these days, of course. But years ago, when segregation was
the norm and "Birth of A Nation" was painting the Klan as
heroes? Why not?

The whole racism thing is a bit of a red herring, as far as the
trouble between Slytherin and the other houses. If you took a
random quarter of the students, gave them blue ribbons, told them that
the blue ribbon group was special and awarded them privileges that
other students didn't have, I guarantee that some of the blue ribbon
students would be selfish and mean about it. And the next thing you
know, some people would be saying that all the blue ribbon kids are
like that. 


It would take more than heroics to change this. JKR shows this
with James and with Harry. As far as Snape's concerned, Harry is
James all over again, and there's nothing Harry can do about it, any
more than there was anything Scrimgeour could have done to convince
Harry that he was going  to die for him -- short of doing it.

The Slytherin kids can't change their rep by being brave or nice any
more than Harry could. Reasons can always be found to doubt the
evidence, and people always pay more attention to bad news than good,
as Rita knows. 

The Slyths can't even forgo their unearned privileges, (and as we saw
with Harry in HBP, what kid would want to do that?) because it's their
parents who are cushily over-represented in the corridors of power,
not them. 

It's not Draco's money that bought his team all new broomsticks. Both
Ron and Draco would love to get their least favorite teacher sacked,
but only Draco has a family with the clout to do it.

Anyway, that's why IMO JKR doesn't try very hard to convince us that
there are good Slytherins by introducing them. If we don't want to
believe that the evil stereotypical Slytherin is misleading,
counterexamples won't change our minds.



> Betsy Hp:
> There's nothing to suggest Slytherins are sorted for anger-issues, 
> just cunning, ambition, and most importantly, racism.  The Hat 
> doesn't create racism, true.  The Hat just makes sure it has a safe 
> and warm environment in which to grow.

Pippin:

Power-hunger suggests an emotional imbalance, does it not? Canon
doesn't show power-hunger growing in warm, safe environments. It grows
in cold, dangerous neglectful ones:  #4 Privet Drive, the Gaunt house,
Riddle's orphanage, Spinner's End, even the Burrow, where Ron and
Percy get less nurturing  than the others. 

Do you  think Snape would have been better off Sorted into another
House? Do you think he'd have been accepted there despite his
neediness and his grinding sense of inferiority? 

Lealess:
JKR has warned female fans against falling for "bad boys," meaning
certain Slytherins, but let's not think she is stereotyping.

Pippin:
I thought she was warning against it because the stereotype isn't
informative about either  real people or of the characters in the
book. It can be appealing to be desired by a scary person  in  a
fantasy or a romance novel. It's a safe way to deal with that fear.
But  in  real life when someone sets off your alarm bells, there's
probably a good reason for it. 

It's the same kind of thing as the camping trip, really.
In suspense novels, being on the run or in hiding is a thrill. Sounds
like fun -- but not if you actually had to do it, and no author was
available to skip you over the boring parts or provide you with a
never-failing magical supply of food. 
 
Pippin






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 25 00:10:46 2008
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:10:46 -0000
Subject: Epilogue/ Horcruxes and Hallows
In-Reply-To: <g3rr0c+jst0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3s2e6+e8to@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183379

Alla:
> Let me try to explain, to me horcruxes, hallows were nothing more 
> than technicalities, to some extent superficial means with which JKR 
> will tell story about people in Potterverse. I am not asking you to 
> agree with me, but as much as I hated horcruxes per se, I certainly 
> understood before DH that horcruxes are great technical means to tell 
> the story about Harry's sacrifice and while I of course was never 
> sure that Harry is a horcrux, I certainly thought it was a 
> possibility precisely for that reason.
<snip>
> I do not believe that she ever intended to story be **about** either 
> Horcruxes or Hallows, if that makes sense.

Jen: That's what I think too, that the Hallows especially were meant to 
be more symbolic & tied to the theme of death than a plot to get 
Voldemort killed.  They were that too of course, a vehicle to make it 
possible for the younger & less powerful Harry to destroy Voldemort, 
but the reason why Voldemort died & Harry lived was primarily about 
human emotions and how each approached death rather than the objects 
involved.  

I found the storyline clunky at times though, particularly the whole 
wand order thing at the end that took away from a powerful moment in 
HBP with Draco/Dumbledore on the tower.  If only that moment could have 
remained symbolic as well, not simply a way for Harry to take 
possession of the Elder wand!  I felt let down by that moment in DH, 
thought JKR reneged on a really moving piece of writing from the tower 
scene.  Now I realize it was likely only moving in my own mind and was 
merely a plot device in hers. 




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 00:15:32 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:15:32 -0000
Subject: Question #1
In-Reply-To: <48604831.9080603@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g3s2n4+69kn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183380

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:

> This parallels the incident in the Dueling Club, when Harry was 
> unaware that he'd been speaking parseltongue.


zanooda:

Add here the zoo incident and Bob Ogden's memory :-).


> Lee Kaiwen wrote:
 
> Any theories as to why that would be? Being multi-lingual myself has 
> never stopped me from recognizing which language was being spoken at 
> me.


zanooda:

What do you mean by "multi-lingual"? I personally met a truly
bi-lingual person (meaning that both languages were native to him, not
learned as foreign languages) only once in my life, and I remember him
saying that, when he is being spoken to in one of those languages, he
doesn't need to pause and think which one is that - French or English.
He just answers instinctively in the correct language, without really
thinking. OTOH, that boy loved jokes, so maybe he was not serious
about this :-). But, if he was, this sounds a lot like Harry - just
understanding without consciously recognizing the language.






From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 01:06:49 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:06:49 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question #1
In-Reply-To: <g3s2n4+69kn@eGroups.com>
References: <g3s2n4+69kn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <48619A29.70709@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183381

CJ:
Being multi-lingual myself has never stopped me from recognizing
which language was being spoken at me.

zanooda:
What do you mean by "multi-lingual" ? I personally met a truly
bi-lingual person (meaning that both languages were native to him

CJ:
Hmm ... under *that* definition of "bi-linguaL", then then I'm a 
monolingual bore. But then I *am* American, so whad'ya expect?

I define "multi-lingual" as simply speaking multiple languages, not 
necessarily natively. But then, even under your definition most folk on 
this planet are at least bilingual. The fact you've only met one 
suggests you might be American, too :-)

zanooda:
I remember him saying that, when he is being spoken to in one
of those languages, he doesn't need to pause and think which one is that

CJ:
But I take "pause and think" and "not be aware" as two different things. 
Now I live in Taiwan, where most of the population is at minimum 
natively bilingual in Chinese and Taiwanese, the latter of which I speak 
nary a word (more or less). I often complain to my wife, when visiting 
with her family, that they have a tendency to hopscotch back and forth 
between the two in mid-conversation -- often in mid-sentence! -- leaving 
me suddenly out in the cold. While her initial reaction is usually 
something like, "Do we?", on a moment's reflection she realizes it's true.

But I see Harry's situation as a bit different. In the dueling club 
incident, for example, Harry is not first spoken to in Parseltongue, he 
initiates it. And second, even after Hermione points out to him that he 
wasn't speaking English, his reaction remains one of disbelief. Now I 
suppose he could be forgiven the first time -- after all, he didn't at 
that point even know he could speak the language -- but other incidents 
reinforce the notion. For example, when he's hearing voices in the walls 
in CoS, it never does occur to him that it's not English. Surely even 
your bilingual friend would realize on reflection (as my wife does) 
which language he had been speaking.

Now at this point I realize I may be over-interpreting, and JKR (who may 
or may not be multi-lingual; anyone know?) may only intend what you're 
describing. But I think her intent her is to indicate that there is 
something preternatural about Parseltongue -- something fundamentally 
different than his English abilities. However, that won't do as a WW 
explanation.

OTOH, that boy loved jokes, so maybe he was not serious
about this :-).

Nah, I tend to believe him.

--CJ




From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 25 01:18:09 2008
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:18:09 -0000
Subject: Question #3
In-Reply-To: <g3r0kj+39d3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3s6ch+h8ro@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183382

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kennyg1864" <kennyg1864 at ...> 
wrote:
> And there really wasn't any evidence remaining at Godric's Hollow
> for the inevitable reporters--just his parents' bodies, and a
> ruined second floor.  And a missing baby, but there's no reason to 
> assume he survived.  Even if Bathilda dropped by (as a noted 
> historian), she wouldn't have known anything more (assuming Hagrid 
> snatched him away before she got there).

Jen: Hagrid said he removed baby Harry before the Muggles started 
swarming.  It's still possible that the magical families in Godric's 
Hollow, which was a 'community within a community', heard the 
screams, saw the green lights that they knew were AKs, and 
investigated the scene.  The Fidelius was broken before LV arrived so 
the Potters weren't hidden during the events.  

Even if the villagers correctly deduced LV was the one casting the 
AKs - the little boy out trick o' treating seemed to recognize him or 
at least realized he was scary - I can't figure out how eveyone knew 
LV was gone instead of apparating out, or that he'd definitely tried 
to kill baby Harry rather than Harry having a scar from surviving 
flying house debris.  I don't think DD wanted it widely known since 
he was intent on getting Harry out of the WW & to safety.  





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 25 01:49:33 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:49:33 -0000
Subject: Question #1
In-Reply-To: <48619A29.70709@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g3s87d+p6s8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183383


> CJ:

> But I see Harry's situation as a bit different. In the dueling club 
> incident, for example, Harry is not first spoken to in Parseltongue, 
he 
> initiates it. And second, even after Hermione points out to him that 
he 
> wasn't speaking English, his reaction remains one of disbelief. Now I 
> suppose he could be forgiven the first time -- after all, he didn't 
at 
> that point even know he could speak the language -- but other 
incidents 
> reinforce the notion. For example, when he's hearing voices in the 
walls 
> in CoS, it never does occur to him that it's not English. 

Magpie:
This is a fairly standard thing in fiction, imo. The point isn't that 
Harry can't recognize one language from another, it's that he 
*believes* that he only speaks English. So when he hears something he 
understands, his mind "hears" it as English. Once he learns the 
difference and focuses he always knows which one he's hearing.

The same thing happens in The Dark is Rising where a character is told 
that he's been conversing in another language since he woke up, but 
didn't know it. He later sees a book written in the same language and 
again says, "But it's in English!" only to be told that no, it's in Old 
Speech. He just hasn't learned to recognize it yet. After he's read the 
book he knows the difference and after that can choose which language 
to speak in, and knows which one he's hearing.

Same with Parseltongue. It's only after Harry learns there are two 
languages he understands that he can control it or even recognize it as 
two languages. In both cases the person was "born" with this language 
without ever having heard it, and they both think they only speak one 
language.

-m




From bgrugin at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 03:06:14 2008
From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:06:14 -0000
Subject: Question #3
In-Reply-To: <g3s6ch+h8ro@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3scn6+5jfe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183384

 
> Jen: Hagrid said he removed baby Harry before the Muggles started 
> swarming.  It's still possible that the magical families in Godric's 
> Hollow, which was a 'community within a community', heard the 
> screams, saw the green lights that they knew were AKs, and 
> investigated the scene.  The Fidelius was broken before LV arrived so 
> the Potters weren't hidden during the events. 


MusicalBetsy here:
But the Fidelius charm wasn't really broken, was it?  After all, it
was the Secret Keeper who willingly gave the info to LV, just like DD
telling everyone the address of 12 Grimmauld Place.  It was only after
James and Lily's deaths that the Fidelius charm was broken - I
think....(this Fidelius charm has always been confusing to me).
> 
> Even if the villagers correctly deduced LV was the one casting the 
> AKs - the little boy out trick o' treating seemed to recognize him or 
> at least realized he was scary - I can't figure out how eveyone knew 
> LV was gone instead of apparating out, or that he'd definitely tried 
> to kill baby Harry rather than Harry having a scar from surviving 
> flying house debris.  I don't think DD wanted it widely known since 
> he was intent on getting Harry out of the WW & to safety.
>

MusicalBetsy:
Here's what I think happened - I think somehow DD used Legilimency on
baby Harry to figure out what happened - it's what I've always
pictured in my mind.  I may be way off base, but it seems as good a
guess as anything else!





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 04:12:03 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:12:03 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3mums+a898@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3sgij+ugv8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183385

> Betsy Hp:
> I wasn't really thinking of "wild-eyed reformers."  I was thinking of 
> the Founders deciding, after Salazer did his, "screw you guys, I'm 
> going home," exit, to close down his House (who'd argue that they 
> didn't have valid call to?  they were the *Founders* for goodness 
> sake!) especially as it espoused values they weren't that thrilled 
> with.  (Or so they *claimed*... ::wink, wink, nudge, nudge::)

Zara:
When did the Founders claim not to be thrilled with the values Salazar 
Slytherin espoused at the time they all founded the school together? On 
the contrary, the fact that they did found a school together, suggests 
to me that they all considered the others' values to be within 
acceptable bounds. My conclusion is racism concerned them far less than 
it does you. Which makes lots of sense to me, it would be a rather 
exotic concern for 10th cetury Britain.

It is also my opinion, that the wizard in the alley in late twentieth 
century Britain is a lot less concerned about racism than you are, 
which is why the idea of closing Slytherin House would still have been 
a wild-eyed one. 






From sweenlit at gmail.com  Wed Jun 25 04:19:46 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:19:46 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <4861676E.5000902@yahoo.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806230950x349ef119g7826427364cfbaf1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g3ou7e+cj50@eGroups.com>
	 <43e41d1e0806232123q1c0a305bt37e64864e687b602@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4861676E.5000902@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806242119t52213e60q1cbd92663050a5a7@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183386

CJ:
Now I think you're being unfairly judgmental toward those of us who find
her work less than perfect.

Lynda:

I'm sorry if I am.  But I did not expect Rowling's work to be perfect. I
think that's been a lot of my problem with some of the comments made on this
list. JKR wrote seven books, carried storylines through all seven of them.
She wrote every single word. Told the story from beginning to end. So, some
of the things she began as substorylines, etc. had to be dropped before the
story became too cumbersome to handle. Some things had to go by the wayside,
and yes, she left some holes in the plot. I have not read an author yet who
does not leave some plotholes unfilled, some questions unanswered. I like to
see writers grow in their abilities, but I don't expect perfection from
humans. To do their best, yes, but not perfection. And I'm pretty sure
Rowling did her best.

As to your comments about finding clues in hindsight and where are the clues
throughout the books, I tend to see patterns in long lines of continuity and
commonality, so when things start adding up, clues that there's something
more going on with wands than a simple purchase of a  tool that a wizard
uses, but an actual bonding with a magic user, which is implied throughout
the series, or the more than every so often references to Harry's
cloak--given to him by DD who had been given it by Harry's dad for a reason
that was unknown but obviously more than slightly important to the series, I
take notice.

On the DH plotline, I simply choose to accept it as part of the overall
story.  Without the DH plotline, the horcruxes would not have been found, as
Rowling wrote the story. I would have liked to see some things done
drfferently. Tonks and Lupin living to raise their son, The Trio finishing
school. Hedwig dying free rather than caged if she had to die, and some of
the plots that were dropped tidied up, but considering what we got, I have
very few complaints.

I don't mean to be unfairly judgmental, but I do think that some of the
people on this list have been expecting something from JKR that practically
no writer can deliver. A perfect book.

Lynda

Lyn


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Wed Jun 25 04:48:59 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:48:59 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
References: <43e41d1e0806230950x349ef119g7826427364cfbaf1@mail.gmail.com> <g3ou7e+cj50@eGroups.com> <43e41d1e0806232123q1c0a305bt37e64864e687b602@mail.gmail.com> <4861676E.5000902@yahoo.com> <43e41d1e0806242119t52213e60q1cbd92663050a5a7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00e601c8d67e$c9ea7bb0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 183387

> I don't mean to be unfairly judgmental, but I do think that some of the
> people on this list have been expecting something from JKR that 
> practically
> no writer can deliver. A perfect book.
>
> Lynda

Lynda- could you elaborate on this? I have yet to see someone on this list 
actually ask Rowling for a perfect book, but maybe I'm missing some posts 
that you have read.

Shelley 




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Wed Jun 25 05:55:45 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:55:45 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <00e601c8d67e$c9ea7bb0$6401a8c0@homemain>
References: <43e41d1e0806230950x349ef119g7826427364cfbaf1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g3ou7e+cj50@eGroups.com>
	 <43e41d1e0806232123q1c0a305bt37e64864e687b602@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4861676E.5000902@yahoo.com>
	 <43e41d1e0806242119t52213e60q1cbd92663050a5a7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <00e601c8d67e$c9ea7bb0$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806242255t560dc157mf05dde0b3c920e51@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183388

Lynda:
Sure. Here's what I responded to. I do realize that a "perfect book" is not
mentioned, but. . .I'll just post it below.

CJ:
Now I think you're being unfairly judgmental toward those of us who find
her work less than perfect.

Lynda:
I'm sorry. I just have problems understanding the extremely harsh criticism
(beyond constructive) that sometimes comes through on the list. It seems
that for some it was an extreme diesappointment that Rowling made decisions
that seemingly changed some of the plotlines and that she chose to expound
on what seemed to be some parts of the story that were touched only
slitghtly in earlier books. As I've said many times before, it is difficult,
when writing a story the length of the HP books, to not have plot holes and
dropped storylines. Some of the things left out of DH disappointed me, too,
but some of the things she included I thought were far from pointless (the
endless camping trip--its a constant in fantasy literature--same with the
search for artifacts) but rather an important way of establishing the type
of work JKR was writing. Fantasy!  She did not do it the way I would have,
but she did write a very successful, very entertaining series of fantasy
books.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Jun 25 06:38:36 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 06:38:36 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806242119t52213e60q1cbd92663050a5a7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g3sp5c+69em@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183389

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" <sweenlit at ...> wrote:

Lynda: 
> I don't mean to be unfairly judgmental, but I do think that some of the
> people on this list have been expecting something from JKR that practically
> no writer can deliver. A perfect book.

Geoff:
I think the whole point is that the perfect book cannot exist.

Why?

Because the concept of perfection is different to everyone on this list. 
Take just one idea... A year ago, there was considerable disagreement in 
the group as to whether Harry would live or not. I jokingly invented the 
IWHTLC (I want Harry to live Club). I would have felt very let down and 
even betrayed if JKR had allowed Harry to be killed. And yet, there were 
many for whom the boot was on the other foot and were in their turn 
disappointed.

For every person who thought that DH was a cop out and full of plot 
holes, there was one who was reasonably well satisfied by the outcomes. 
Personally, I belonged to the latter group - except for the epilogue. 

To meet the aspirations of all her readers was an impossibility. Even 
Tolkien couldn't do it.
:-(




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Jun 25 07:44:45 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:44:45 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g3qus0+eaqe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3st1d+s5sj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183390

 
> Magpie:
snip
Slytherins seem to be made up 
> of sometimes conflicting bad qualities, which is reflected in how 
> they're given the trait of ambition and even cunning, but when 
those 
> qualities are needed for good things they are covered by non-
> Slytherins, who wind up being better at them in the better ways. 
> 
> Potioncat:
> I don't think Slytherin House gets a bad rap within
> the books. There were times that Harry looked out at Quidditch 
games,
> and most of the students were wearing green. So I don't think JKR
> shows a WW distrust of Slytherin, although Gryffindors seem to
> generally distrust them.
snip

Potioncat:
Good point. So it seems she set out to make Slytherin House the bad 
house, even to the point of giving the finer Slytherin qualities to 
members of other houses and only the worst of the traits to 
Slytherins.

Yet, at the same time, she gives Gryffindors both the fine points and 
negative traits of bravery.
> 
> Magpie:
> Really? I may just be forgetting something, but I far more remember 
> games where everyone cheered for Gryffindor against Slytherin. I 
> can't remember any time when other houses cheered for Slytherin.

Potioncat:
Oops. The audience full of green rosettes turned out to be an 
audience of scarlett ones. The closest I can come is in OoP when the 
other 2 houses are watching the Slytherin-Gryffindor match carefully 
because they'll be playing both teams later. So I'll concede that 
point. Again, the closest I can come, is that while she always shows 
Slytherins as bad, they seem to be accepted within the WW.






From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 09:54:22 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:54:22 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question #3
In-Reply-To: <g3scn6+5jfe@eGroups.com>
References: <g3scn6+5jfe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <486215CE.6000909@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183391

MusicalBetsy:
Here's what I think happened - I think somehow DD used Legilimency on
baby Harry to figure out what happened

CJ:
As well-versed in wizarding forensics as DD undoubtedly was, I'm sure 
there were plenty of clues at the scene. In any case, he had only to use 
Regurgitatio Incantorum (OK, I admit I made that up because I forget the 
real name) on LV's wand to play back its spells. Finding three AKs and a 
scar undoubtedly still incandescent with magical residue probably told 
him all he needed to know.

Which brings to mind the question: what happened to LV's wand?

Jen:
The Fidelius was broken before LV arrived so the Potters weren't hidden 
during the events.

CJ:
I think I agree with others here that the Fidelius wasn't actually 
broken. By betraying their location, Wormtail made it possible for LV to 
pass *through* the Fidelius.

Can a Fidelius actually be broken? And can't it only be lifted by the 
person who cast it? And wasn't that DD in this case? Which means no one 
could get in until DD had decided to let them in, presumably after Harry 
and his parents' bodies had been removed.

Jen:
I can't figure out how eveyone knew LV was gone instead of apparating 
out, or that he'd definitely tried to kill baby Harry rather than Harry 
having a scar from surviving flying house debris.

CJ:
How'd they even know Harry survived, let alone bore a scar?

Jen:
I don't think DD wanted it widely known since he was intent on getting 
Harry out of the WW & to safety.

CJ:
It's a conundrum. Seemingly the best possible way to protect Harry was 
to let the world think he was dead -- and who'd know any different? Yet 
the only people who knew he survived were DD and Hagrid but by then 
everyone knew), so they had to be the source of the rumors.

And further, why allow Harry to re-enter the WW with his true name? Why 
not give him an alias and and a Muggle-born backstory? By the time he 
was ready to enter Hogwarts only DD would have known who he truly was.

--CJ, who chuckled when, after typing "rumours" above, was gently 
prodded by his (American) spell checker to change it to "rum ours".




From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Wed Jun 25 11:27:59 2008
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:27:59 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3ocvh+jmjr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3ta3v+n1ds@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183392

 
> Alla:
> 
> Actually I never could conclude that. Prejudging - sure in a sense, 
but 
> to me it makes a huge difference what they were prejudging upon. 
> Theoretically person can work upon becoming braver, even it is all in 
> one's mind to convince oneself how to hide the fear, etc.
> 
> And the person more than theoretically CAN work on improving their 
> performance in school. And that I know not from theory and it works.
 
Hickengruendler:

While that's true, if these kids decided to become braver or want to 
learn more at age 12, it would be too late for them to ever go to 
Hogwarts. Therefore, yes, I consider the behaviour of Gryffindor and 
Ravenclaw pretty flawed as well. Nonetheless, I don't recall either of 
them hiding a monster inside Hogwarts to kill everyone who ist cowardly 
or stupid.




From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 25 12:51:05 2008
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:51:05 -0000
Subject: Question #3
In-Reply-To: <486215CE.6000909@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g3tevp+5k3k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183393

MusicalBetsy here:
> But the Fidelius charm wasn't really broken, was it? After all, it
> was the Secret Keeper who willingly gave the info to LV, just like
> DD telling everyone the address of 12 Grimmauld Place. It was only
> after James and Lily's deaths that the Fidelius charm was broken - I
> think....(this Fidelius charm has always been confusing to me).

> CJ:
> I think I agree with others here that the Fidelius wasn't actually 
> broken. By betraying their location, Wormtail made it possible for
> LV to pass *through* the Fidelius.
> 
> Can a Fidelius actually be broken? <snip>

Jen: I took that wording from LV's memory of the night in DH: "And 
along a new and darker street he moved, and now his destination in 
sight at last, the Fidelius Charm broken, though they did not know it 
yet..." (DH, US edition, "Bathilda's Secret", p. 343)  I don't know 
if that squares with the other infomation on the Fidelius in the 
books or JKR's interview comments.  It sounds clear that the Fidelius 
wasn't active the night they died though.  That makes sense to me 
because Peter telling the location was 'broken faith' so to speak.


> Jen:
> I don't think DD wanted it widely known since he was intent on
> getting Harry out of the WW & to safety.
> 
> CJ:
> It's a conundrum. Seemingly the best possible way to protect Harry
> was to let the world think he was dead -- and who'd know any
> different? Yet the only people who knew he survived were DD and
> Hagrid but by then everyone knew), so they had to be the source of
> the rumors.

Jen: Sirius was there as well, not that I think he was the one 
telling everyone.  Remind me why it's a commonly held belief that no 
one else was around that night?  It would only take a couple of other 
magical people for the owls to start flying.  The only mention I can 
think of is Hagrid saying he took Harry away before Muggles saw him.  
And with the new information in DH about Godric's Hollow, Hagrid's 
comment can be read several ways since magical people lived there as 
well.

CJ:
> And further, why allow Harry to re-enter the WW with his true name?
> Why not give him an alias and and a Muggle-born backstory? By the
> time he was ready to enter Hogwarts only DD would have known who he 
> truly was.

Jen: Because Dumbledore has his *plan* of course!  His beloved plan 
that none will put asunder.  In my less cynical moments, I can see DD 
wanted Harry to have a choice when he re-entered the magical world so 
he didn't go to great lengths to hide Harry indefinitely.  
Dumbledore's plan is the reason I don't think DD was the one to 
spread rumors.  The less known the better if he had any chance of 
keeping Harry alive.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 13:47:51 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:47:51 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3ta3v+n1ds@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3tia7+hn7d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183394

> > Alla:
> > 
> > Actually I never could conclude that. Prejudging - sure in a 
sense, 
> but 
> > to me it makes a huge difference what they were prejudging upon. 
> > Theoretically person can work upon becoming braver, even it is 
all in 
> > one's mind to convince oneself how to hide the fear, etc.
> > 
> > And the person more than theoretically CAN work on improving 
their 
> > performance in school. And that I know not from theory and it 
works.
>  
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> While that's true, if these kids decided to become braver or want 
to 
> learn more at age 12, it would be too late for them to ever go to 
> Hogwarts. Therefore, yes, I consider the behaviour of Gryffindor 
and 
> Ravenclaw pretty flawed as well. 

Alla:

Flawed behavior in a sense that they wanted to teach in their house 
only students with certain characteristics? Sure, of course and I 
would never dispute that.

But I maintain that their preselection criteria was not nearly as bad 
as Slytherin's was.

I am not sure how do you deduce that if student decides to be smarter 
at the age of 12, in a sense to work harder, etc, it will be to late 
for her to go to Ravenclaw.

After all, as Magpie said it is magic and if Hat can look at all 
those characteristics that we know she looks at to sort, she cannot 
also look at student's determination to work harder for intellectual 
achievements and sort to Ravenclaw on the basis of what student is 
going to make of herself.

Does it make sense to you?

But let me say again, of course I am not disputing that they wanted 
to teach certain students, it is just I believe that their criteria 
is not set in stone as harshly as Slytherin's was in a sense that 
that criteria could be changed by the person at least to certain 
extent and what Slytherin wanted from students could not be changed 
at all.

Somebody (Pippin?) also mentioned that IQ cannot be changed. Well, 
sure, it cannot be, but I do not remember that criteria for sorting 
Ravenclaws is spelled out as high IQ, if it was, I would absolutely 
agree that it is as bad as Slytherin's.

But Ravenclaws are sorted for intellect, are they not? Have no book 
with me and I believe it can be intepreted as high academical 
achievement. And I found out that the saying  that talent is 99% work 
and only 1% of gift has a lot of truth in  it.

You certainly cannot become genius if you are not one, but you can 
achieve A LOT with hard work, a whole lot IMO.

I sincerely doubt that Hat would have sorted me in Ravenclaw judging 
on my first year grades in lawschool, tee hee. Now if she would able 
to look in the future and see my third year transcripts, yep I think 
she may have changed her mind.

Hickengruendler:
>Nonetheless, I don't recall either of 
> them hiding a monster inside Hogwarts to kill everyone who ist 
cowardly 
> or stupid.


Alla:

Agreed and I also do not recall either one of them saying that 
students who are cowardly or stupid should not be admitted to school, 
only to their respective houses.

JMO,

Alla




From mros at xs4all.nl  Wed Jun 25 14:04:37 2008
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:04:37 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
Message-ID: <19824.192.87.123.43.1214402677.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>

No: HPFGUIDX 183395


> Hickengruendler:
>
> While that's true, if these kids decided to become braver or want to
> learn more at age 12, it would be too late for them to ever go to
> Hogwarts. Therefore, yes, I consider the behaviour of Gryffindor and
> Ravenclaw pretty flawed as well. Nonetheless, I don't recall either of
> them hiding a monster inside Hogwarts to kill everyone who ist cowardly
> or stupid.
>


Marion:

No, they will merely lock a monster in a shed and lure people of the
'wrong House' in for 'just existing'. A totally *different* kind of thing,
of course...





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 14:31:27 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:31:27 -0000
Subject: Epilogue/ Horcruxes and Hallows
In-Reply-To: <g3s2e6+e8to@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3tkrv+6hu7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183396

> Jen: That's what I think too, that the Hallows especially were 
meant to 
> be more symbolic & tied to the theme of death than a plot to get 
> Voldemort killed.  They were that too of course, a vehicle to make 
it 
> possible for the younger & less powerful Harry to destroy 
Voldemort, 
> but the reason why Voldemort died & Harry lived was primarily about 
> human emotions and how each approached death rather than the 
objects 
> involved.  

Alla:

I just realized (DUH Alla) that all that she did with this is (IMO) 
to continue pattern with some previous books where the objects are 
seemingly important, but it is really not about them at all.

I mean nobody argues that the first book is really about philosopher 
stone, right? I think that all that sorcerer stone does is shows how 
differently Harry and Voldemort approach immortality and sorcerer 
stone is just that, an object.

But maybe first book is a bad example since there are could be no 
clues yet because it was **first book**. Let's take a book which 
comes up two books later ? Goblet of Fire. Anybody can name **any** 
clues that will lead us to believe that Goblet of fire will feature 
in the fourth book? I know I cannot, since Goblet of fire is not 
something that is supposed to be foreshadowed IMO. Goblet of fire is 
a technical means to get Harry to tournament and to lead him to 
Graveyard where Voldemort's resurrection will occur. And of course I 
can name clues that are in the earlier books about Voldemort's coming 
back.

I think Rowling followed the pattern pretty nicely here. 

 
Jen:
> I found the storyline clunky at times though, particularly the 
whole 
> wand order thing at the end that took away from a powerful moment 
in 
> HBP with Draco/Dumbledore on the tower.  If only that moment could 
have 
> remained symbolic as well, not simply a way for Harry to take 
> possession of the Elder wand!  I felt let down by that moment in 
DH, 
> thought JKR reneged on a really moving piece of writing from the 
tower 
> scene.  Now I realize it was likely only moving in my own mind and 
was 
> merely a plot device in hers.

Alla:

I know, believe me I do. For all my dislike of Draco, I do absolutely 
see where you are coming from and normally I would feel the same way, 
as I said, I am a sucker for the moments like that
 had it been not 
for my dislike of Draco.
Just as normally I would want to hug Snape when I read about him 
looking suicidal when he comes to Dumbledore, and this moment 
bizarrely leaves me cold, same thing here, I know how this moment can 
be viewed as powerful.





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 25 14:35:32 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:35:32 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806242119t52213e60q1cbd92663050a5a7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g3tl3k+drj2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183397

> CJ:
> Now I think you're being unfairly judgmental toward those of us who 
find
> her work less than perfect.
> 
> Lynda:
> 
> I'm sorry if I am.  But I did not expect Rowling's work to be 
perfect. I
> think that's been a lot of my problem with some of the comments 
made on this
> list. 

Magpie:
As someone who didn't like DH, I think that's a strawman that's 
always thrown at people: You expected it to be perfect. I'm happy to 
deal with lots of imperfections. But I don't pretend to find 
something better than I did. I just give whatever my own honest 
reaction to the book was. I'm describing what I see in the books, not 
complaining that it didn't match up to some specific thing I thought 
it should be. 

Also, regarding predictions, all stories rely on giving some idea 
where the story is going. Of course readers can't know for sure, only 
the writer can. But there's a difference between saying you don't 
like a story because such-and-such specific thing didn't happen, and 
thinking the story was going to be more satisfying than it turned out 
to be. It's not always invalid to say that your hopes for some 
resolution were raised and then disappointed. Sometimes a story does 
raise expectations and then fail to fulfill them--it's not always on 
the level of, say, complaining that Harry didn't marry Hermione. 
Sometimes a reader's dissatisfaction points to something in the story.

In JKR's case, unfortunately for me, a lot of the stuff she 
ultimately was interested in and wanted to say was disappointing to 
me. I don't think she wrote her story wrong, since she went the way 
she was always going. But I didn't much care for what she was saying.

Lynda:
JKR wrote seven books, carried storylines through all seven of them.
> She wrote every single word. Told the story from beginning to end. 
So, some
> of the things she began as substorylines, etc. had to be dropped 
before the
> story became too cumbersome to handle.

Magpie:
Yes, she wrote seven books. I don't think anybody's not giving her 
credit for not doing that. She did write a lot of words and that's an 
acheivement. Some storylines didn't get resolved, but it's not my 
duty as a reader to pretend that something got resolved well if I 
don't think it did. Personally, I don't really have a problem with 
feelings things weren't "resolved." I think they were resolved in the 
way she wanted them resolved, and for me, many of those resolutions 
were facile or disappointing or just plain weird. Or even if I didn't 
have a problem with how they were resolved, I'm still going to talk 
about what they "say" to me. This is something that I had trouble 
with earlier as well--in certain earlier books I was disappointed in 
resolutions to things, and that was just repeated in a bigger way by 
the way the series resolved. This wasn't about arcane theories about 
how things would go, it was about actual issues raised in the story 
and how they were resolved.

Lynda:
> As to your comments about finding clues in hindsight and where are 
the clues
> throughout the books, I tend to see patterns in long lines of 
continuity and
> commonality, so when things start adding up, clues that there's 
something
> more going on with wands than a simple purchase of a  tool that a 
wizard
> uses, but an actual bonding with a magic user, which is implied 
throughout
> the series, or the more than every so often references to Harry's
> cloak--given to him by DD who had been given it by Harry's dad for 
a reason
> that was unknown but obviously more than slightly important to the 
series, I
> take notice.

Magpie:
That's not really what you said. You claimed that there were "clues" 
regarding the Hallows that would have created plotholes if she hadn't 
written that plot, and that's not true that I can see. I have a hard 
time believing that if the Hallows hadn't been introduced anyone 
would have been saying, "But wait, I'm sure it was suggested that 
there was something going on with Harry's cloak being particularly 
sturdy and that we needed to get some new information about wands 
bonding with people." In DH itself, obviously the Hallows was 
important for what it was important for: apparently the fact that 
Harry was using the wand he was using was important because he was 
the master of Voldemort's wand too. They were part of the device. 
(Unfortunately, as someone else said, that robbed a lot of meaning I 
thought I saw in the HBP plot because it turned out all that mattered 
was that device.)

What I would say about a lot of the way clues were read was that 
Rowling was fond of the reverse Chekov's gun. Iow, rather than the 
principle that if you introduce a gun in the first act it needs to go 
off in the fourth, she followed the principle that if a gun was going 
to go off in the fourth act she would introduce it in some way in the 
first. So careful reading and a memory for detail was rewarded. It 
wasn't always really a clue because there was nothing a reader could 
figure out, and it wasn't a gun set up that had to go off. It just 
meant that if you were a careful reader you'd remember an earlier 
reference to something that you only later found out. Ron mentioning, 
in an offhand way, that Harry's cloak is "in good shape" is that. If 
nothing had come of it it would have been exactly what it sounded 
like--Ron, having seen cloaks before, comments that Harry's is in 
good shape. Neville's mother's bubble gum wrappers seemed like the 
same thing, but that turned out to be nothing. It wasn't a plot hole 
that it turned out to be nothing.

Lynda:
> I don't mean to be unfairly judgmental, but I do think that some of 
the
> people on this list have been expecting something from JKR that 
practically
> no writer can deliver. A perfect book.

Magpie:
That's, imo, what's unfair in the way you're judging other people. 
Having a criticism or not particularly liking something in the book 
does not mean anybody expected it to be perfect. You can have a 
problem with one thing and not have a problem with another thing. And 
since, as you say, no writer can deliver a perfect book, the very 
fact that presumably all of us who didn't care for the ending of the 
series have liked at least some other books, obviously we don't 
demand all books be perfect. Disliking the Hallows plot or being 
bored with the camping or feeling like the heroes sat around until 
the next deus ex machina device fell into their laps doesn't sound to 
me like demanding perfection.

Also, besides thinking about the book might have been, there's also 
just looking at what it is and what that says to you. Iow, it's 
already in its "most perfect" form. Now you just have to look at what 
that form is. 

Alla:
 But Ravenclaws are sorted for intellect, are they not? Have no book
with me and I believe it can be intepreted as high academical
achievement. And I found out that the saying that talent is 99% work
and only 1% of gift has a lot of truth in it.

Magpie:
I've always thought it sorted more on values. Hermione, for instance, 
has perfect grades, but she values other things more. Her intellect 
is mostly only important for the kind of changes she wants to make in 
the world--her fighting for others, which is more about bravery.

But as a better example, there's Neville. Neville seems quite timid 
when he first comes to Hogwarts. His courage "grade" would be low. 
But he probably values bravery, and like many people, he eventually 
becomes what he admires. The fact that he's scared a lot at 11 
doesn't keep him from being a Gryffindor. Peter, too, must have 
valued bravery, even if he eventually failed at being brave. (I tend 
to think of Lockhart as a Gryffindor too.)

Alla:

Agreed and I also do not recall either one of them saying that
students who are cowardly or stupid should not be admitted to school,
only to their respective houses.

Magpie:
Right.

Marion:
No, they will merely lock a monster in a shed and lure people of the
'wrong House' in for 'just existing'. A totally *different* kind of 
thing,of course...

Magpie:
It is different in terms of the discussion being strictly about the 
Founder's criteria for the Hat. Even though many students over the 
years might have shared Salazar's ideas that students not like them 
shouldn't be at the school or should be killed for all we know. 

-m




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Wed Jun 25 15:35:39 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:35:39 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3sp5c+69em@eGroups.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806242119t52213e60q1cbd92663050a5a7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g3sp5c+69em@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806250835h460b2ef3pf23c0ad95c8b2564@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183398

Geoff:
I think the whole point is that the perfect book cannot exist.

Lynda:
Absolutely right. I came into the HP series having read and watched a
plethora of fantasy/SF and left it having left even more. I always try to
read a book with an open mind, letting the writer take me on the journey he
or she has written. As far as perfection goes, I don't ask for it from any
writer. No human has yet been perfect--well, there's one, but this isn't a
list about religion but about a series of books--and then there's the
personal preference and experience angle which colors everyone's
perceptions.  I came away from the HP series realizing that there were
unwoven portions in the story, but she did a good enough job in the weaving
that the story is well told, as a whole.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Wed Jun 25 15:54:02 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:54:02 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g3tl3k+drj2@eGroups.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806242119t52213e60q1cbd92663050a5a7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g3tl3k+drj2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806250854p7f1d4ae4hf37c3071ccaf36ec@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183399

Magpie:
So careful reading and a memory for detail was rewarded. It
wasn't always really a clue because there was nothing a reader could
figure out, and it wasn't a gun set up that had to go off. It just
meant that if you were a careful reader you'd remember an earlier
reference to something that you only later found out.

Lynda:
But, if in looking back through the books or with careful reading a person
does figure out something concerning a plotline or device, that is a clue,
just not one that's explicit.

As for the perfection thing, I was responding to something that was written
to me, nothing more.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 15:54:06 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:54:06 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806242119t52213e60q1cbd92663050a5a7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g3tpmu+5cmv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183400

> Lynda:
> I don't mean to be unfairly judgmental, but I do think that some of the
> people on this list have been expecting something from JKR that practically
> no writer can deliver. A perfect book.
> 

Montavilla47:
I can see why you'd think that.  And that's a criticism that cuts, because
it puts the onus on me, as a disappointed reader.  Was I putting too 
much pressure on the last book?  Were my expectations too high?

I was certainly very enthusiastic about Deathly Hollows.  I purchased
three copies.  One for myself and two for young relatives.  I had been
sharing a mutual enjoyment for the series with my nephew for several
years.

And, objectively speaking, I should have been quite happy.   The ending
was pretty much what I predicted.  Harry lived.  Snape was good.  In the
few months before the book was published I had, somewhat reluctantly,
come into the Snape/Lily campe, so that was another feather in my 
predicting cap.  

But... but... but.  I was disappointed.  Mainly because I just couldn't get
into the Dumbledore subplot, I suppose.  Every time Harry angsted about
Dumbledore's two-week flirtation with evil in his teens, I felt like shouting,
"What does it matter?  By the time you met him, he'd been anti-anti-muggle
for a hundred years!  Plus, you don't even *like* muggles! He obviously 
changed his mind when HE DEFEATED GRINDELWALD!"

Look at that.  Harry made me go capslock.  

Every move the Trio made in the book seemed clunky and ponderous.  Every
place they went involved *weeks* of intense planning.  Planning that we never
saw, but nevertheless seemed to bog us down.  And yet, for all the *weeks*
of planning, there always seemed to be some big, obvious thing they didn't
think through.  Like Hermione packing everything in her bag (including the 
kitchen sink), but neglecting to bring food.  Or the Trio angsting about
stealing food, instead of apparating to a large town and going to the 
supermarket.  

I had imagined a big battle at Hogwarts, which we got.  The details were
fun (I liked the charging desks), but the action was... disappointing.  
Whether or not it was deliberate, I got pretty annoyed at Harry for standing
around like an idiot, watching everyone run around, instead of looking
for the darn Horcrux.  

I was disappointed that Draco Malfoy never seemed to get beyond that 
moment on the Tower when his wand drooped a tiny bit.  He spent all of
DH with his wand metaphorically drooping just a tiny bit (until he didn't
have a wand at all).  

I was disappointed that Unforgiveable Curses became not just forgiveable, 
but "gallant."  I was disappointed the Molly Weasley turned into Ripley.  I 
was disappointed that Percy's main reconciliation seemed to be centered
on the twins, when his break-up was with his father, since that was a 
reconciliation that could have ended any time in that last three books and
been effective.  

I was disappointed the Grawp's contribution to the story
turned out to be less than the trouble it took to bring him into it in the 
first place.  I was disappointed that Remus's efforts with the werewolves
came to nothing.  I was disappointed that the Power of Love didn't really
apply to Harry at all--his main advantage turned out to be a technical
one, based on his ability to grab and pull some else's wand out of their
hand.  That Power of Love actually applied to Snape--who was dead 
(Did it matter that Snape wasn't on Voldemort's side if he was dead?)

And yes, I was disappointed that the Sorting Hat's warning about unity
only applied to three of the four Houses.  

So, it wasn't really a big thing that disapointed me.  It was a lot of little
things--including the pacing of the book.

And part of that disappointment came from JKR's own statement about
having written the epilogue before starting the book, so that she'd 
know where she was going.  I took that to mean that she did have a 
grand unified plan.  Having reached the end, I don't think she did.  She
knew what was going on with Harry, but everyone else was just 
background.

Montavilla47




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 15:59:28 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:59:28 +0800
Subject: Fidelius Confundus (was: Re: Question #3)
In-Reply-To: <g3tevp+5k3k@eGroups.com>
References: <g3tevp+5k3k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <48626B60.4080501@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183401

CJ:
Can a Fidelius actually be broken? <snip>

Jen:
from LV's memory of the night in DH: "And along a new and darker
street he moved, and now his destination in sight at last, the
Fidelius Charm broken, though they did not know it yet..."

CJ:
OK, I'll give you the word :-). But since we already know is the was 
Secrete Keeper's betrayal that allowed LV to enter, I don't think we 
need understand "broken" in its usual sense here.

Jen:
That makes sense to me because Peter telling the location was
'broken faith' so to speak.

I think that'd be the better way to understand it -- broken in the sense 
of "rendered ineffective" in LV's case through traitorous act of the 
Secret Keeper.

Jen:
Sirius was there as well, not that I think he was the one telling everyone.
Remind me why it's a commonly held belief that no one else was around that
night?

Hmm... But Sirius already knew where the Potters were hiding -- he was 
originally to be the SK, after all. But at this point the descriptions 
we're given of the Fidelius Charm become very confusing.

"As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-Who could 
search the village where Lily and James were staying for years and never 
find them, not even if he had his nose pressed against their sitting 
room window!" (PoA chap. 10)

[A] secret ... is enchanted so that it is protected by a single 
Keeper.... [N]obody else - not even the subjects of the secret 
themselves - can divulge the secret.... The only people who ever knew 
their precise location were those whom Wormtail had told directly, but 
none of them would have been able to pass on the information." (JKR 
interview)

On the one hand, JKR's description suggests it is merely information 
that is hidden by the Fidelius, not the object itself. But that would 
imply it would still be possible to discover the information through 
ordinary means. Yet Grimmauld Place itself -- not just knowledge of its 
location -- was effectively rendered invisible by the Fidelius such that 
even someone looking directly at it was unable to see it. And the PoA 
passage says flat out even someone peering in the window at Godric's 
Hollow would have been unable to see the Potters.

Yet both passages suggest the information can only be learned when the 
SK willfully chooses to directly speak it ("As long as the SK refused to 
speak..." in PoA; "...those whom Wormtail told directly" in the 
interview). And yet, contrary to this, Hermione -- who is not even the 
SK (or wait! is she? according to Mr. Weasley in DH, after the death of 
the SK, everyone to whom he revealed the Secret became a SK in turn; but 
that differs from what JKR herself had said) -- accidentally, not 
willfully, reveals the location of Grimmauld Place when Yaxley manages 
to side-along apparate.

But it gets even worse. Shell Cottage was also protected by the Fidelius 
Charm. But when was the Charm cast? Lookt at Dobby disapparating back 
and forth between Shell Cottage and the Malfoys' dungeon. The first time 
he manages to find Shell Cottage on his own -- merely on Harry's 
instruction. So it couldn't have been protected yet. Yet, when Harry 
returns to the cottage after burying Dobby Bill tells Harry the cottage 
is protected and that he's the SK. So the Charm apparently was cast 
somewhere after Harry's first arrival at the cottage, but before his 
return after Dobby's burial. But Harry was able to find his way back 
notwithstanding. Which suggests anyone in sight (or at least with 
knowledge) of the secreted place at the time of the casting isn't 
subject to the Charm.

Now what of Sirius and Godric's Hollow? I'm presuming the Fidelius was 
still in place (the necessity of Wormtail's betrayal suggests even LV 
was unable to "break" the FC, despite the wording in DH) which would 
mean, according to the PoA passage, that anyone else in the neighborhood 
would remain unaware of the Potters' presence even after their deaths.

But how did Sirius know they were there? We can presume that he knew of 
the plan before hand -- particularly as he was to be the SK originally 
-- but what happens to people with prior knowledge once the Charm is 
cast? Shell Cottage suggests they retain their knowledge -- though 
perhaps it renders them unable to reveal it -- which would make Sirius' 
presence at GH reasonable. But what of DD and Hagrid? We could further 
assume DD knew because he was the caster, or at least that Pettigrew 
revealed it to him once the spell had been cast. But DD was not the SK 
so even he could not have revealed the place to Hagrid. And Wormtail 
certainly was sticking around to reveal it to Hagrid. Perhaps DD had 
simply carried Harry out of the house to where Hagrid *could* see him.

There's a further question raised by GH vs. GP. GP itself was protected 
and hidden by the FC such that even the house itself could not be seen. 
However, was it the Potter house, or merely their presence inside it 
that was protected at GH? Could neighbors see the house at all? The PoA 
passage suggests yes, but LV would not have been able to see the Potters 
inside.

--CJ





From kennyg1864 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 24 23:29:31 2008
From: kennyg1864 at yahoo.com (kennyg1864)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:29:31 -0000
Subject: Question #3
In-Reply-To: <48616E3F.8060406@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g3s00r+davc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183402


> > lizzyben:
> > Maths strikes again.
>
>
> CJ:
> Not to resurrect old discussions (or was that over in OT?) but is
> "maths" singular or plural?

kennyg1864:
"Maths" in the UK, "Math" in the US.  JKR has used the (UK) term a few times, so HP fans tend to say "Maths"--even US fans, to show what smart insiders we are  [:p]


> CJ:
> As to Harry becoming the "Boy Who Lives", since there were no
> living eye witnesses to the events in Godric's Hollow (save
> Harry and Voldie, and neither was in a position to give
> testimony), one wonders how even DD knew Harry had survived
> an AK -- since no one had ever managed it before, it's not like
> he had prior experience to guide him -- let alone
> the entire WW knowing it within hours.

kennyg1864:
IIRC the prevailing guesswork is that DD knew of the breaking of the
Fidelius Charm as soon as LV broke it (thanks to Wormtail's betrayal), since he had cast the Charm.  As for Harry himself, maybe he had a baby monitor (special Wizard Edition ???) that  showed Harry still alive? After all, he knew of the prophecy, and thus of Harry's importance, so maybe he put a long-distance Sneakoscope (or perhaps something of Mad-Eye's) to keep an eye on him.


> CJ:
> One might easily imagine DD deducing even that unlikely conclusion
> from the evidence at the scene, except for his statement to
> McGonagall to the effect "We might never know" how Harry survived.

kennyg1864:
Or maybe he didn't want McGonagall to know just yet.  Or maybe that
statement meant that he hadn't yet figured out why Harry survived the AK curse, but only that he had done so.


> CJ:
> But since DD was the only one on the scene who could possibly have
> pieced together what happened, and the only one in the WW save
> Hagrid who knew about Harry's scar, it's hard to escape the
> conclusion that he was the source of all the rumors that
> eventually fell into McGonagall's ears.

Agreed!

kennyg1864, who wishes JKR would just let us see the Daily Prophet
Special Edition for that day



From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jun 25 16:19:22 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:19:22 -0000
Subject: Epilogue/ Horcruxes and Hallows
In-Reply-To: <g3s2e6+e8to@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3tr6a+n813@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183403

> Jen: That's what I think too, that the Hallows especially were meant
to  be more symbolic & tied to the theme of death than a plot to get 
> Voldemort killed.  They were that too of course, a vehicle to make
it  possible for the younger & less powerful Harry to destroy
Voldemort,  but the reason why Voldemort died & Harry lived was
primarily about  human emotions and how each approached death rather
than the objects  involved.  

Pippin:
There is at least one gaping plot hole that would appear if the
Hallows simply vanished from DH:  the twin core problem would be
unresolved.  

We did know that the wand chooses the wizard, that  wizards can
replace their wands, and that you never get as good results with
another wizard's wand. We also knew  that Harry was hard to suit in
the first place, so we could anticipate some difficulty in finding a
replacement wand for him.

It's clear there's a mystery about the cloak. Why did Dumbledore have
it? Why did he want Harry to have it in PS/SS if, as he says in OOP,
he wasn't expecting Harry to go after the stone so soon? Why was he so
insistent that Harry keep the cloak with him at all times in HBP? 

As for the stone, Harry's desire to connect with the dead is a
constant theme from PS/SS onward and begs for resolution. 

The Hallows also provide an interior conflict for Harry. Many people
feared exactly what others seem to have wanted: that with so much of
the necessary action laid out in advance, DH would be a
straightforward rush to a breathtaking conclusion. Fun, but perhaps 
more suited to a video game than to a series of interrelated novels
that took years to plan and write: collect all horcruxes, beat the
boss and win. Whatever we got, it wasn't that.


But I agree that the main purpose of the Hallows is to symbolize the
moral  of the story, and that's really important because the moral of
the story doesn't seem to be what you'd  expect, if your
expectations were formed by other modern heroic fantasy epics. The
usual moral is that evil can always be defeated if someone
sufficiently noble is willing to pay the price. The Chosen One will
bring balance to the Force.  Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in
sight. 

I think this is why some people can't figure out where JKR was going
morally; they're trying to fit the action  to this moral, and it won't
go. Each of the books in the series moves a little further away from
it. Each of Harry's victories leaves the reader a little more aware
that there is still evil in the world, and wondering, especially from
OOP onward, why Harry or Dumbledore or somebody didn't do more.
Or at least try. 

The horcruxes show  that evil can *sometimes* be defeated if someone
is willing to pay the price. But not always. Paying the price is not
enough, you have to know what you're doing.  It's folly and arrogance
to  try to fix what you don't understand.  Lockhart may have meant
well for once in his life, but he still should have left Harry's arm
alone. 
 
Some evils cannot be cured, some wounds are too deep for the healing.
Maybe there's a beyond where we'll be united with our loved ones and
evil will be left behind, maybe we can only imagine that in our own
heads, if we can manage to ignore the evil that's within us.

 But we needn't succumb to angry destruction (the wand) or useless
mourning for what might have been (the stone). We cannot rid the world
of evil. But even the weak and cowardly and selfish can do something
to protect others with the power of love (the cloak.)

Jen Reese:
> I found the storyline clunky at times though, particularly the whole 
> wand order thing at the end that took away from a powerful moment in 
> HBP with Draco/Dumbledore on the tower.  If only that moment could
have  remained symbolic as well, not simply a way for Harry to take 
> possession of the Elder wand!  

Pippin:
I'm not sure why you felt the symbolism was less. It's moving to me to
know that Dumbledore was improvising, his precious plans in a muddle,
and yet he was still capable of rallying himself to save Draco from
becoming a murderer. 


Pippin




From kennyg1864 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 16:18:24 2008
From: kennyg1864 at yahoo.com (kennyg1864)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:18:24 -0000
Subject: Question #4--Why so long for the last Horcrux?
Message-ID: <g3tr4g+l01b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183404


We know that LV created the first 4 Horcruxes between roughly 1941
(ring) and 1945 (cup and locket).  I'm assuming the diadem was shortly
thereafter.

(side question about the locket:  Does the basin on the island in the
cave automatically refill, once correctly emptied by drinking?  i.e.,
after RAB stole the real one, how did the fake one get covered by
potion, to be retrieved years later by Harry and DD?  Or did RAB re-do
the potion curse, so that LV wouldn't suspect anything?)

Thus by 1946 or so, LV's soul is in 6 pieces (5 H's + LV himself).  But
IIRC he wanted it to be in the mystical 7 pieces.  So he created an H in
Nagini (in 1994).

Now clearly his motivation in using Nagini was that he wanted an H that
was close by, due to his near-death in 1981.  But the question remains:

Why did he wait almost 5o years for the mystical 7th piece?  Obviously
he didn't have much opportunity to do so from 1981 to 1994.  But if the
7th piece was so important, why did he waste 35 years (1946-1981) *not*
creating it?  And especially in the period between 1946 and 1970, when
he "came out" as LV (no longer Riddle), he would want to have "ultimate
protection", since the formation of a group like the OotP was
inevitable.

Or is it that the "magical 7 parts" is not as important as I recall it
to be, and therefore Nagini was just a fail-safe born out of fear, not
the mystical 7th?

kennyg1864, who is now aware that Nagini is female, which means Voldy's
sorta got two girlfriends, kinda like Hef :-)







From sweenlit at gmail.com  Wed Jun 25 16:50:08 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:50:08 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3tpmu+5cmv@eGroups.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806242119t52213e60q1cbd92663050a5a7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g3tpmu+5cmv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806250950r6beab4b9l5786f6b55dbdd716@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183405

Lynda:
Now here are some things that I can respond to in an intelligent and
hopefully nonconfrontational manner. I did feel the need to copy and paste
the entire post for reasons which will become apparent, I believe:

Montavilla47:
I can see why you'd think that. And that's a criticism that cuts, because
it puts the onus on me, as a disappointed reader. Was I putting too
much pressure on the last book? Were my expectations too high?
I was certainly very enthusiastic about Deathly Hollows. I purchased
three copies. One for myself and two for young relatives. I had been
sharing a mutual enjoyment for the series with my nephew for several
years.

Lynda: Same here. I went to the opening night party, spent the entire
evening reading, drinking HP themed drinks and taking part in costume
events.

Montavilla47:
And, objectively speaking, I should have been quite happy. The ending
was pretty much what I predicted. Harry lived. Snape was good.In the
few months before the book was published I had, somewhat reluctantly,
come into the Snape/Lily campe, so that was another feather in my
predicting cap.

Lynda: I never really did join the Snape/Lilly camp. I wasn't disappointed
by its inclusion, just didn't see a lot of evidence for it throughout the
books--I was, however early to realize that the horrible boy Petunia rants
about was Snape, not James.

Montavilla47:
But... but... but. I was disappointed. Mainly because I just couldn't get
into the Dumbledore subplot, I suppose. Every time Harry angsted about
Dumbledore's two-week flirtation with evil in his teens, I felt like
shouting,
"What does it matter? By the time you met him, he'd been anti-anti-muggle
for a hundred years! Plus, you don't even *like* muggles! He obviously
changed his mind when HE DEFEATED GRINDELWALD!"

Lynda:
I was just glad to know that Dumbledore had a subplot! Angsty teenagers
don't bother me. I expect teens to be angsty. And I've been disappointed by
people's actions in the past and know how difficult forgiveness can be
(believe me--I had to forgive a teacher of mine who caused grave harm to a
large number of my classmates through his behavior--then I had to forgive
myself for my attitude to him--the latter was more difficult: the first made
me feel free).

Montavilla47:
Look at that. Harry made me go capslock.
Every move the Trio made in the book seemed clunky and ponderous. Every
place they went involved *weeks* of intense planning. Planning that we never
saw, but nevertheless seemed to bog us down. And yet, for all the *weeks*
of planning, there always seemed to be some big, obvious thing they didn't
think through. Like Hermione packing everything in her bag (including the
kitchen sink), but neglecting to bring food. Or the Trio angsting about
stealing food, instead of apparating to a large town and going to the
supermarket.

Lynda:
Considering what it was the trio was doing, the intense planning was
necessary. And I don't think we needed to be burdened with being overly
detailed with it. It would only have made the book longer--more clunky for
those who already consider it so. Yes, there were always big things that
they neglected to think about, but having already experienced six years of
the trio doing exactly that, that wasn't a surprise to me.

Montavilla47:
I had imagined a big battle at Hogwarts, which we got. The details were
fun (I liked the charging desks), but the action was... disappointing.
Whether or not it was deliberate, I got pretty annoyed at Harry for standing
around like an idiot, watching everyone run around, instead of looking
for the darn Horcrux.

Lynda:
Here I go again. He did go after the Horcrux. He also watched the battle for
a bit, which gave us a view of the fight, sense the book is from his
viewpoint. He had a choice to make. Fight or look for the horcrux. His
friends teachers and schoolmates were fighting and it would not have been
easy for a kid like Harry not to stay and fight, but he did go after the
horcrux.

Montavilla47:
I was disappointed that Draco Malfoy never seemed to get beyond that
moment on the Tower when his wand drooped a tiny bit. He spent all of
DH with his wand metaphorically drooping just a tiny bit (until he didn't
have a wand at all).

Lynda:
I never expected big changes from Malfoy. It would have been nice, but not
expected.

Montavilla47:
I was disappointed that Unforgiveable Curses became not just forgiveable,
but "gallant." I was disappointed the Molly Weasley turned into Ripley.

Lynda:
I always believed that the Unforgivable Curses were only Unforgivable if
they were used for the purposes of Dark Magic. Expelliarmus, to my mind,
used by a Dark wizard, to disarm a wizard who is trying to stop him becomes
an Unforgivable Curse. I would not consider Crucio, Imperio or other
traditional UC spells to be gallant, however. Neither did I think Molly
Weasley turned into Ripley--Ripley is not the only person to have ever used
that term before or since, or to have defended her offspring against
something trying to kill them.

 Montavilla47:
I was disappointed that Percy's main reconciliation seemed to be centered
on the twins, when his break-up was with his father, since that was a
reconciliation that could have ended any time in that last three books and
been effective.

Lynda:
Percy's falling out was with his entire family, not just his father, and the
twins were the ones who most actively
opposed him, even before he left the family cloister, so I thought it was
appropriate that it was they he reconciled with first. Especially in light
of the fact that one of them died in the battle.

Montavilla47:
I was disappointed the Grawp's contribution to the story
turned out to be less than the trouble it took to bring him into it in the
first place.

Lynda:
What contribution? No. I haven't forgotten what he did, it was just so
minimal as to be unremarkable.

Montavilla47:
I was disappointed that Remus's efforts with the werewolves
came to nothing.

Lynda: I was too. I was not expecting it too. Werewolves are nasty beasties
for the most part, but it would have been nice to see a few more join in
against the Dark Wizards.

Montavilla47:
I was disappointed that the Power of Love didn't really
apply to Harry at all--his main advantage turned out to be a technical
one, based on his ability to grab and pull some else's wand out of their
hand. That Power of Love actually applied to Snape--who was dead
(Did it matter that Snape wasn't on Voldemort's side if he was dead?)

Lynda:
Ah! Now here I disagree with you. The Power of Love that Harry had meant
everything to the story. Without it He would never have survived and if
Voldemort had been able to give up his anger and hatred ("try for a little
remorse"). Of course it applied to Snape. It applied to every character in
the story!

Montavilla47:
And yes, I was disappointed that the Sorting Hat's warning about unity
only applied to three of the four Houses.

Lynda:
I don't think that's the case. The Sorting Hat's warning applied to all four
houses, it's just that every person had to make their own decision and only
one Slytherin (Professor Slughorn), did. I was also happy that the senior
Malfoys made a turn around and actually ended up helping Harry, if only
indirectly.

Montavilla47:
So, it wasn't really a big thing that disapointed me. It was a lot of little
things--including the pacing of the book.
And part of that disappointment came from JKR's own statement about
having written the epilogue before starting the book, so that she'd
know where she was going. I took that to mean that she did have a
grand unified plan.

Lynda:
Knowing the end of the story before writing the beginning, just means you
know where you're headed. Not necessarily the nitpicky details.

Montavilla47:
Having reached the end, I don't think she did. She knew what was going on
with Harry, but everyone else was just background.

Lynda:
Well, its Harry's story, but I have a feeling she had more planned out with
the other characters than you do. She just kept focused on Harry, since he
was the main character.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Wed Jun 25 16:56:34 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:56:34 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806250950r6beab4b9l5786f6b55dbdd716@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806242119t52213e60q1cbd92663050a5a7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g3tpmu+5cmv@eGroups.com>
	 <43e41d1e0806250950r6beab4b9l5786f6b55dbdd716@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806250956g1d9891abn6ddde21c23ab084f@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183406

By the way Montavilla, thank you for your response to my post. I understand
your disappointment with some of those things and how they have hindered
your enjoyment of the story, just see things a little differently than you
in some cases.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 17:07:22 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:07:22 +0800
Subject: Are we being too critical? (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue))
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806242119t52213e60q1cbd92663050a5a7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806230950x349ef119g7826427364cfbaf1@mail.gmail.com>	 <g3ou7e+cj50@eGroups.com>	 <43e41d1e0806232123q1c0a305bt37e64864e687b602@mail.gmail.com>	 <4861676E.5000902@yahoo.com> <43e41d1e0806242119t52213e60q1cbd92663050a5a7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48627B4A.7050509@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183407

Lynda:
On the DH plotline, I simply choose to accept it as part of the overall 
story. Without the DH plotline, the horcruxes would not have been found, 
as Rowling wrote the story. I would have liked to see some things done 
drfferently ... but considering what we got, I have very few complaints.

CJ:
I'd like to hear you elaborate on your point about the horcruxes not 
being found without the DHs, as I'm of a different opinion, namely that 
the DHs contributed almost nothing of value to the horcrux hunt; 
certainly nothing to justify the plot line's page-weight.

Lynda:
I don't mean to be unfairly judgmental, but I do think that some of the 
people on this list have been expecting something from JKR that 
practically no writer can deliver. A perfect book.

However, I understand your "perfect" as hyperbole, not a literal attempt 
to attribute unreasonable positions to those of us who have some 
critical things to say about the series. You're simply trying to say, 
"Just let the story be the story it is, rather than the story you wish 
it were." I can understand the frustration of those who really enjoyed 
the full series at the seemingly endless critiques and nit-pickings.

I don't disagree with you, though I don't entirely agree either. There's 
always a balance to be struck. It certainly would be unreasonable to 
call JKR a bad writer, or DH a bad book, simply because we wish Tonks 
had lived, or Snape had turned out less creepy. And, while the people 
here have done their fair share of expressing disappointment over -- 
*and* satisfaction with -- many of those points, I don't think anyone 
has presumed to render judgment on JKR or the books based on them.

But there are many other levels of discussion going on here as well, 
many of a more literary nature -- asking not how well the story worked 
for me, but how well we thought it worked *as a story*. I think my own 
criticism of the DH plot line falls into that category. I am expressing 
my opinion as to how well DH fulfilled not my personal desires but 
expectations that HBP went to a great deal of effort to set up. And 
ultimately I found the DH plot line a major distraction and believe DH 
would have been a technically better story (*not* a more personally 
satisfying one) without it.

I think we need to understand two things: first, there are really only 
two workable solutions. Either you disallow *all* negative comments -- 
and then police the group literally to death -- or you permit all 
opinions, positive and negative. The only other option involves setting 
someone up as judge and jury over just which negative opinions are to be 
allowed, and since none of us would ever be able to agree on that, the 
group would quickly disintegrate anyway.

Second, I think it's an undeniable fact that the negative criticisms and 
opinions have reached an all-time high in HPFG. But a large part of that 
is understandable. While the series was still in progress, it was 
impossible to have many of the discussions we've been having in the past 
year, as the series wasn't complete. Now that it is, it's possible to 
sit back and evaluate the series as a whole not only in fulfilling some 
of the promises of the early books, but in some of JKR's own stated 
goals for the series. To take but one example, the whole "Slytherins are 
bad" discussion couldn't possibly have happened before DH, since no one 
had any idea how things would turn out. At most, two or three years ago, 
one might have expressed hope that JKR would find a way to redeem 
Slytherin (after all, she herself had said in interviews that redemption 
was one of the major themes of the series). Only with the publication of 
DH has it become possible to discuss whether she succeeded.

--CJ




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 25 17:18:34 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:18:34 -0000
Subject: Resolutions (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806250854p7f1d4ae4hf37c3071ccaf36ec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g3tula+kvfc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183408

> Magpie:
> So careful reading and a memory for detail was rewarded. It
> wasn't always really a clue because there was nothing a reader could
> figure out, and it wasn't a gun set up that had to go off. It just
> meant that if you were a careful reader you'd remember an earlier
> reference to something that you only later found out.
> 
> Lynda:
> But, if in looking back through the books or with careful reading a 
person
> does figure out something concerning a plotline or device, that is 
a clue,
> just not one that's explicit.

Magpie:
Well, yeah, but it's the kind of clue described, imo, where you're 
just seeing a reference to something that will later come into the 
story. Ron's words about Harry's cloak isn't anything that could be 
said to be a clue that Harry's cloak is what it is. It's more like 
just when you go back and re-read PS you can say, "Heh heh, it sure 
is in good shape!" It proves maybe that Rowling had it planned out, 
but nobody could really use Ron's comment to get to anything. 

Actually, to go on a tangent, I think this sort of thing is simply 
JKR's strength and so also weakness. I think she's great at coming up 
with emotional stories in outline form--the story of the Crouches, 
the Marauders vs. Snape fight, Dumbledore's backstory, Merope's life 
and love for Tom--I think these work really well because we hear 
highlights and fill in the emotional detail ourselves. 

In the present day, I don't think it works so well. She is focused on 
Harry, as you say, and I think it was around OotP where I really 
started feeling like peoples' emotions were very much controlled by 
the plot. Which works great in backstory, but less often works as 
well when it's played out in front of us imo. So you get Harry 
following his strict line of development, having the emotions he 
needs for the plot, and other people also have emotions to give them 
things to do in that story that end when they're no longer needed. 
I'm not explaining this well at all, but I think it's partly a reason 
for my feeling underwhelmed a lot of the time. 

For instance, with something like the Draco story, it's not just 
about whether or not you expected something from him. That's just 
prediction. It's that HBP, imo, set up all sorts of interesting messy 
stuff that I though logically followed from what had already started--
it was a case of just starting a ball rolling and seeing where it 
landed. Instead Draco served his use in the plot and then fulfilled 
another use in the plot. Things that seemed like they'd need 
emotional resolution were wrapped up neatly--more neatly than felt at 
all organic to me. Snape, too, had all this build up and then slotted 
neatly into a more minor player on the chess board, regardless of his 
final revelation that he did it for Lily. With both those characters 
at the moment where it seemed like Harry would be most emotionally 
intimate with them, they became not very emotionally important to him 
at all. 

JKR wanted to focus on Harry's feelings about Dumbledore, so that was 
introduced late in the game--he worries he loves him just as we get 
information that maybe 100 years ago he was into some shady stuff 
when it always seemed like he'd just sprung forth fully formed as a 
mentor figure (which he kind of had). 

The focus still always being on whatever feelings JKR is wanting to 
take Harry through in that particular book, which I think is why 
people often wind up feeling "cheated" in the emotional fallout to 
things. Sirius' mourning is taken care of in the woodshed--you can't 
say it wasn't dealt with, it was just dealt with by us being told 
it's not really an issue. It fits neatly into the box where it goes. 
Starting with GoF Ron goes into an endless loop of jealousy about 
Harry, but like Lupin's problems in DH it felt more like just giving 
other characters something to do until the finale. When Harry and Ron 
fight in GoF I thought it was great and messy--the high point for me 
being when Harry hits Ron with the badge and says maybe he'll have a 
scar now because that's what he wants. But then most of those 
emotions go away--Ron just has to admit he was wrong, and then Ron 
continues to play out his inadequacy issues but Harry's own possibly 
problematic attitudes (as stated when he throws the badge) go away. 

Which is why to me it winds up being impressive for all the juggling 
of storylines--there is something satisfying in watching Rowling pick 
up the different threads, especially in HBP where Harry really is 
killing time until the Malfoy/Snape storyline climaxes. But that also 
takes away from my ever feeling emotional resolution. It's more just 
plot resolution--like in DH I felt like there was a big chalk board 
with different things and characters getting crossed off. Also we 
were without the school year which usually camoflaged all the time 
the plot wasn't moving us forward, and we wind up with the Trio often 
doing nothing until something falls into their lap, obviously 
following the school year without a school year to follow. I just 
think there's a reason that a lot of people expected Harry's Horcrux 
hunt to be about problematic relationships already set up. I think 
that's also why fanfic for this universe is so popular--I think 
fanfic deals with exactly this kind of stuff.

Pippin:
I'm not sure why you felt the symbolism was less. It's moving to me to
know that Dumbledore was improvising, his precious plans in a muddle,
and yet he was still capable of rallying himself to save Draco from
becoming a murderer.

Magpie:
Snape (not Draco) killing him was the most important part of the 
precious plans. Whether Draco himself became a murderer didn't have a 
quarter of the importance I thought it would have, myself. As I once 
described it to someone, if you've seen the Bad News Bears, I thought 
Dumbledore was acting more like Buttermaker putting Timmy Lupus in at 
the end of the championship game. He turned out to be more like Jack 
Black's character in School of Rock letting that one kid be the 
costume designer--a nice gesture that didn't risk the entire 
enterprise or play into the final outcome.

-m 




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 17:27:50 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:27:50 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Epilogue/ Horcruxes and Hallows
In-Reply-To: <g3tkrv+6hu7@eGroups.com>
References: <g3tkrv+6hu7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <48628016.8060000@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183409

Alla:
I just realized (DUH Alla) that all that she did with this is (IMO)
to continue pattern with some previous books where the objects are
seemingly important, but it is really not about them at all.

CJ:
The word you're looking for is "MacGuffin". It's a term widely used in 
the movie industry (and now finding its way into literary discussions as 
well) for an item whose sole purpose is to kickstart or advance the plot 
in a meaningful way, but whose specific identity is unimportant. The 
term was popularized by Alfred Hitchcock who frequently used MacGuffins 
in his movies; e.g., the "government secrets" in North by Northwest (it 
never did matter what the papers were; they were simply the the plot 
catalyst). Other famous movie MacGuffins are the maltese falcon in The 
Maltese Falcon, the letters of transit in Casablanca, the sealed 
cannister in Mission: Impossible III (of course, some have suggested MI3 
itself was nothing more than a MacGuffin for Tom Cruise's career) or the 
"secret papers" in any of dozens of spy movies and novels.

Calling something a MacGuffin, BTW, is by no means necessarily an 
insult. MacGuffins can be very effective literary devices. After all, as 
you suggested, the Sorcerer/Philosopher's stone is indeed one.





From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Jun 25 17:50:42 2008
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:50:42 -0000
Subject: Question #3
In-Reply-To: <g3s00r+davc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3u0hi+3eft@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183410

kennyg1864:
> IIRC the prevailing guesswork is that DD knew of the breaking of the
> Fidelius Charm as soon as LV broke it (thanks to Wormtail's 
betrayal), since he had cast the Charm.

Ceridwen:
DD couldn't have cast the charm or he would have known that Peter was 
the SK, not Sirius.  He would have had to know who he was binding in 
the thing, or he could not have performed the spell.  If DD knew that 
Peter was the SK, then he has some tall explaining to do about why he 
allowed Sirius to languish in Azkaban all those years.  If Sirius had 
merely killed Peter, a traitor, the WW seems like the place that 
would still allow latitude for a "crime of passion" such as killing 
the person who betrayed a young couple to their deaths in service of 
a Dark Wizard.

We don't know how the Fidelius works.  We might have gotten an idea 
with the Unbreakable Vow, with two parties in agreement and a third 
binding that agreement, but we don't know that for certain.  If this 
is the case, there were more than three people involved in the 
Potter's Fidelius - the two adults to be protected (I assume that 
only adults or people over a certain age of accountability could 
enter into contractual agreements, even magical ones), the SK, and 
the one originally meant to be the SK.  Sirius could have cast the 
spell with Peter and the Potters all clasping hands.  DD wasn't 
necessary, and in my opinion, if he had been involved, then he acted 
criminally against Sirius.

Ceridwen.




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 18:18:23 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:18:23 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Resolutions
In-Reply-To: <g3tula+kvfc@eGroups.com>
References: <g3tula+kvfc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <48628BEF.2010309@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183411

Wow, what a great series of comments from pippin, magpie and montavilla. 
I just wanted to thread three of their comments together, and add my own 
thought (small as it may be):

Pippin:
I'm not sure why you felt the symbolism was less. It's moving to me to 
know that Dumbledore was improvising, his precious plans in a muddle, 
and yet he was still capable of rallying himself to save Draco from 
becoming a murderer.

Montavilla47:
I was disappointed that Draco Malfoy never seemed to get beyond that 
moment on the Tower when his wand drooped a tiny bit. He spent all of DH 
with his wand metaphorically drooping just a tiny bit (until he didn't 
have a wand at all).

Magpie:
Snape (not Draco) killing him was the most important part of the
precious plans. Whether Draco himself became a murderer didn't have
a quarter of the importance I thought it would have, myself. ... I
thought Dumbledore was acting more like Buttermaker putting Timmy Lupus
in at the end of the championship game. He turned out to be more like
Jack Black ... letting that one kid be the costume designer--a nice
gesture that didn't risk the entire enterprise or play into the final 
outcome.

CJ (Now):
I was one of the many who through most of the series held out hope for a 
Draco redemption arc, and I think I found DD's efforts to save Draco on 
the tower the most emotionally moving moment in the whole vignette, 
which further served to raise my hopes to the level of near certainty. I 
felt let down when, as Montavilla put it, throughout DH Draco's wand 
never undrooped (hmm, there's some imagery there I we should probably 
just leave dangling :-) ). But far worse than simply being left 
unfulfilled, the humanity of the moment which so touched me turned out, 
as Magpie notes, to have been a charade. DD -- the monster -- wasn't 
protecting Draco at all, he was protecting his plan. But worst of all, 
it robs me of the joy of a second reading.

--CJ




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 18:24:23 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:24:23 -0000
Subject: Fidelius Confundus (was: Re: Question #3)
In-Reply-To: <48626B60.4080501@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g3u2gn+ej0d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183412

---  Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:

bboyminn:

First, you are assume a lot of facts not in evidence. Next, to
a degree you are rationalizing; meaning creating a path of 
logic that fits the facts as you see them. What is rationalized
is not always rational; in general.


>
> CJ:
> Can a Fidelius actually be broken? <snip>
> 
> Jen:
> from LV's memory of the night in DH: "And along a new and 
> darker street he moved, and now his destination in sight at
> last, the Fidelius Charm broken, though they did not know 
> it yet..."
> 
> CJ:
> OK, I'll give you the word :-). But since we already know is
> the was Secrete Keeper's betrayal that allowed LV to enter, 
> I don't think we need understand "broken" in its usual sense 
> here.
> 
> Jen:
> That makes sense to me because Peter telling the location 
> was 'broken faith' so to speak.
> 
> ... through traitorous act of the Secret Keeper.
> 
> Jen:
> Sirius was there as well, ... why (is) it' a commonly held 
> belief that no one else was around that night?
> 
> CJ?:
>
> ... But at this point the descriptions we're given of the 
> Fidelius Charm become very confusing.
> 
> "As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-Who
> could search the village where Lily and James were staying 
> for years and never find them, not even if he had his nose 
> pressed against their sitting room window!" (PoA chap. 10)
> 

bboyminn:

This is not the absolute all-inclusive definitions of the 
Fidelius Charm. It is a general conversation description 
using the Potters as a illustration. 

> CJ:
>
> [A] .... The only people who ever knew their precise location
> were those whom Wormtail had told directly, but none of them 
> would have been able to pass on the information." (JKR 
> interview)
> 

bboyminn:

Right, but how do you define 'directly'. Remember Dumbledore
conveyed the secret of Grimmauld Place to Harry via a NOTE.

>CJ:
>
> On the one hand, JKR's description suggests it is merely 
> information that is hidden by the Fidelius, not the object 
> itself. But that would imply it would still be possible to 
> discover the information through ordinary means. Yet Grimmauld
> Place itself -- not just knowledge of its location -- was 
> effectively rendered invisible by the Fidelius ...
> 

bboyminn:

But you are assuming that all Fidelius Charms are constructed
the same. Each charm has a subject or object of the charm as
well as the recipient of the secret (the Secret Keeper).

In the case of the Potters, was the secret 'The Potters' or
was the secret the location of the House in Godrics Hollow?

If seems the bulk of the evidence is that it was the house
that was hidden, as Voldemort being able to see the house 
indicates to him that the charm was broken. 

In the case of Grimmauld Place, it is certainly the House
that is hidden, but remember that the Secret Keeper Charm
is only the last of a great many charms protecting the house.

However, you are right about one point, it would be possible
for individuals in their own minds to realize that the house
at Grimmauld Place belonged to Sirius Black's family and now
belonged to Sirius Black. But while they could resolve this
in their own minds, the Fidelius Charm would prevent them
from saying it out loud, or by other means, to anyone else.

But, even if they personally realized that the house had once
existed and belonged to the Blacks, how would that help them.
They still couldn't find it, and they still couldn't get in
without help.

> CJ:
>
>... And yet, contrary to this, Hermione -- who is not even the 
> SK (or wait! is she? according to Mr. Weasley in DH, after 
> the death of the SK, everyone to whom he revealed the Secret
>  became a SK in turn; but that differs from what JKR herself 
> had >said) -- accidentally, not willfully, reveals the 
> location of Grimmauld Place when Yaxley manages to side-along 
> apparate.
> 

bboyminn:

In the first point in parenthesis, you are assuming that JKR
made absolute complete all-inclusive statements. She is 
personally honor bound to tell the truth, but she is not 
bound to tell the WHOLE truth.

In as far as she went, JKR's statements are the truth. But
that doesn't mean there can't be more to the truth. JKR's
later amendments to the Fidelius are merely the rest of 
the story.

As to Hermione bringing Yaxley inside the bounds of the 
Fidelius, how is that a conflict. Where willful of not,
she still brought someone inside the bound and thereby
revealed the secret. Although, this is never really proven.
Hermione suspects she has revealed the secret, and tells
Harry as much, but do we ever see any evidence that it was
true? I don't think so. 

Once again, it is a matter of taking everyone's statements as
absolute truth, when 'absolute truth' is extremely unlikely.

>CJ:
>
> But it gets even worse. Shell Cottage was also protected by
> the Fidelius Charm. But when was the Charm cast? Look at Dobby 
> disapparating back and forth between Shell Cottage and the
> Malfoys' dungeon. 

bboyminn:

Shell cottage was not protected at the time of Harry and
Dobby's arrival. In fact, it was protected because of their
arrival. But that doesn't make much difference because 
Dobby doesn't bring everyone TO Shell Cottage, he brings
everyone NEAR Shell Cottage.

Just as the DE are able to stand watch outside Grimmauld Place
because they know that 12 Grimmauld Place, the long-time
house of the Black family, exists. They are not able to 
actualy find or see the house itself, and as such are not
able to enter.

> CJ:
>
> .... So the Charm apparently was cast somewhere after Harry's
> first arrival at the cottage, but before his return after 
> Dobby's burial. But Harry was able to find his way back 
> notwithstanding. 
> 

bboyminn:

Upon Harry's arrival, Bill goes to warn the others Weasleys
and the Order of what has happened. It is while he is gone 
that the Fidelius spells are cast.

As far as Harry returning, I think he is already in the house
when the spell is cast and Bill returns to inform them. So,
he isn't finding his way to anywhere that he is not already 
aware of. 

> Now what of Sirius and Godric's Hollow? I'm presuming the 
> Fidelius was still in place (the necessity of Wormtail's 
> betrayal suggests even LV was unable to "break" the FC, 
> despite the wording in DH) which would mean, according to the
> PoA passage, that anyone else in the neighborhood would remain 
>unaware of the Potters' presence even after their deaths.
>

bboyminn:

Well, you first flaw is in assuming the Fidelius was still in
place even in the face of evidence that it was not. Wormtail
revealing the secret is very very different that Wormtail
BETRAYING the secret. He is perfectly free to tell Sirius and
others of the location, that is revealing, not betraying. 

However, when he revealed the secret to Voldemort he not only
betrayed his friend, he betrayed the secret, and he betrayed
his (real or implied) Magical Oath of Fidelity. It was the
Betrayal of Fidelity that broke the Fidelius Charm.  


> CJ:
>
> But how did Sirius know they were there? 

bboyminn:

Presumably Sirius was in on the conception and creation of
the Fidelius Charm related to the Potters. We know people
dropped by to see them, as Lily indicates in her letter. So,
there is no reason to assume that Sirius, by what ever means,
was not in on the secret. Logically, the Potters would need
some support -food, etc.... So, Sirius logically provided 
some of that support. Also note, that I believe Lily mentions
hanging around with Bathilda Bagshot, an old friend of 
Dumbledore's. So, some trusted people certainly knew the
secret; Sirius, Bathilda, Hagrid, Dumbledore, etc....


> CJ:
> 
> ... 
> However, was it the Potter house, or merely their presence 
> inside it that was protected at GH? Could neighbors see the 
> house at all? The PoA passage suggests yes, but LV would not
> have been able to see the Potters inside.
> 
> --CJ
>

bboyminn:

The above is only a true supposition if you first assume all
Fidelius Charms are the same. That the subject of the Charm is
always and consistently either only the people or only the
place, and that there aren't other variations of it. It is also
only true if you take Flitwick explanation to be an absolute 
all-inclusive all-defining thorough and complete definition. 
I say it was not; it merely illustrates the nature of the 
Fidelius to  someone who has no knowledge of it. That is a very
different thing. 

Steve.bboyminn




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jun 25 18:37:52 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:37:52 -0000
Subject: Resolutions (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g3tula+kvfc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3u3a0+336v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183413

> Magpie:
> Snape (not Draco) killing him was the most important part of the 
> precious plans. Whether Draco himself became a murderer didn't have
a  quarter of the importance I thought it would have, myself. 

Pippin:
But that's the point. The strategic purpose for saving Draco's soul
was gone, but Dumbledore still took the time to save it, though that
time could have been used for strategic purposes such as telling Harry
about the sword.  

Draco's soul is not valuable  because he was a cog in Dumbledore's
wheels within wheels, or a potential hero, or the reformer of
Slytherin House, or Harry's bestest friend, or the guy who
will make the Trio sorry they ever assumed that Slytherins were no
good, or because he could become a cool, sly, masterful Slytherin like
Snape at Spinner's End. 

It's valuable because...it exists. 

Pippin





From sweenlit at gmail.com  Wed Jun 25 18:39:40 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:39:40 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Are we being too critical? (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue))
In-Reply-To: <48627B4A.7050509@yahoo.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806230950x349ef119g7826427364cfbaf1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g3ou7e+cj50@eGroups.com>
	 <43e41d1e0806232123q1c0a305bt37e64864e687b602@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4861676E.5000902@yahoo.com>
	 <43e41d1e0806242119t52213e60q1cbd92663050a5a7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48627B4A.7050509@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806251139q96c1e2aud0d20c1bdaf70b03@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183414

CJ:
I'd like to hear you elaborate on your point about the horcruxes not
being found without the DHs, as I'm of a different opinion, namely that
the DHs contributed almost nothing of value to the horcrux hunt;
certainly nothing to justify the plot line's page-weight.

Lynda:
It is not possible, anymore, for me to separate the horcruxes from the
hallows, because Rowling did include the hallows in the story. While Harry
was distracted by the new revelations of the hallows, the horcruxes were
looming in the back of his mind, and when he returned to hunting horcruxes,
the hallows remained a part of the story. Without the hallows, Harry would
not have had the support of his friends and family who had already passed
away, or the ability to wander unseen throughout the army of deatheaters and
without the elder wand in play, Voldemort would not have been defeated. So,
to my way of thinking, the hallows were important to the plot.

Now on the literary criticism. Certainly, questions about how well the story
worked as a story are well worth the time they've been given. I've never
claimed otherwise. Is Rowling the best writer in the world? No. Is she my
favorite writer? No. Not by a long shot, in fact. Is she my favorite fantasy
writer? No. Again, not by a long shot.
Do I think that she could have done a more thorough job with the story if
she had put her mind to it? Yes, I do and we would have gotten a better
story as a result. A much better story. Especially considering the last two
books. Each of them could have been better handled.

I'm not against all negative comments on the series. What I am against is
some of the nearly exclusive negativity that I am seeing on the list. I am
hoping that turns around to a more balanced discussion soon.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 18:56:19 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:56:19 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806250950r6beab4b9l5786f6b55dbdd716@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g3u4cj+d7r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183415

> Lynda: 
>I never really did join the Snape/Lilly camp. I wasn't disappointed
> by its inclusion, just didn't see a lot of evidence for it throughout the
> books--I was, however early to realize that the horrible boy Petunia rants
> about was Snape, not James.

Montavilla47:
I figured out that Snape was the awful boy fairly early.  Around HBP, anyway, 
when I really put effort into figuring things out at all.  

As for Snape/Lily, it sort of looked like it was coming during HPB when
Slughorn talked about Lily being a potions genius.  There's no way
Snape wouldn't notice someone who was good at potions--so he had
to know her.  Yet, he never once mentioned her to Harry.  That was
suspicious to me.

But I didn't come around to the camp until I tried writing fic with them
as friends--and they quickly became more than that.

> Montavilla47:
>Every time Harry angsted about
> Dumbledore's two-week flirtation with evil in his teens, I felt like
> shouting...
> 
> Lynda:
> I was just glad to know that Dumbledore had a subplot! Angsty teenagers
> don't bother me. I expect teens to be angsty. And I've been disappointed by
> people's actions in the past and know how difficult forgiveness can be
> (believe me--I had to forgive a teacher of mine who caused grave harm to a
> large number of my classmates through his behavior--then I had to forgive
> myself for my attitude to him--the latter was more difficult: the first made
> me feel free).

Montavilla47:
Well, I'm aware that teens can be angsty, but that doesn't mean I want to 
listen to them angst.  And it's not like Dumbledore's actions of a hundred
years ago have anything to do with Harry.  I mean, the thing Harry ought 
to need to forgive Dumbledore for is for setting him up to commit suicide.

Why Harry would need to forgive Dumbledore for considering an opinion 
he obviously later rejected is beyond my patience to fathom.

> Lynda:
> Considering what it was the trio was doing, the intense planning was
> necessary. And I don't think we needed to be burdened with being overly
> detailed with it. It would only have made the book longer--more clunky for
> those who already consider it so. Yes, there were always big things that
> they neglected to think about, but having already experienced six years of
> the trio doing exactly that, that wasn't a surprise to me.

Montavilla47:
Well, the only time I can think of that they were *that* silly was in OotP, 
when they decide to hurry off  to rescue Sirius, when--as soon as 
Umbridge was out of the picture--they were free to use her fireplace 
to contact Arthur and Molly--or even floo directly to 12 Grimauld Place, 
if they were determined to go to the Ministry.

But in that case, Harry was in panic mode.  In DH, they take weeks to
plan and forget things--like stocking the tent with tins of food--that
any normal person would jot down first on the list of "Things to Do."

> Montavilla47:
> I had imagined a big battle at Hogwarts, which we got. The details were
> fun (I liked the charging desks), but the action was... disappointing.
> Whether or not it was deliberate, I got pretty annoyed at Harry for standing
> around like an idiot, watching everyone run around, instead of looking
> for the darn Horcrux.
> 
> Lynda:
> Here I go again. He did go after the Horcrux. He also watched the battle for
> a bit, which gave us a view of the fight, sense the book is from his
> viewpoint. He had a choice to make. Fight or look for the horcrux. His
> friends teachers and schoolmates were fighting and it would not have been
> easy for a kid like Harry not to stay and fight, but he did go after the
> horcrux.

Montavilla47:
Yes, he goes after the Horcrux, after McGonagall reminds him that all the
stuff he's watching is specifically being done so that he can--and that the
longer it takes him, the more likely it is that people are going to die.  And
if it's so hard for Harry to look for the Horcrux instead of fighting, then 
he ought to delegate the looking to someone else.

Which, I suppose, gets to my fundamental problem with Harry as a 
character (which is different from any problem with JKR as a writer): Harry
is the worst leader in the world.  

Everyone who opposes Voldemort is ready to give their all for Harry.
But Harry takes all that goodwill and energy and does practically nothing
with it.  He's incapable of delegating--the only way to do anything 
for him is to be like Hermione and just plow ahead and do things 
and then tell him what to do.

It's not like the hero has to be a great leader.  Plenty of heroes haven't
been.  But, if they aren't going to be a leader, then it would be less
annoying if people didn't insist on treating him as one.

> Montavilla47:
> I was disappointed that Draco Malfoy never seemed to get beyond that
> moment on the Tower when his wand drooped a tiny bit. He spent all of
> DH with his wand metaphorically drooping just a tiny bit (until he didn't
> have a wand at all).
> 
> Lynda:
> I never expected big changes from Malfoy. It would have been nice, but not
> expected.

Montavilla47:
But I'm not even talking about a big change.  I'm talking about getting off
the fence.  Otherwise, what's the point of setting him up with a choice to 
begin with?  

> Montavilla47:
> I was disappointed that Unforgiveable Curses became not just forgiveable,
> but "gallant." I was disappointed the Molly Weasley turned into Ripley.
> 
> Lynda:
> I always believed that the Unforgivable Curses were only Unforgivable if
> they were used for the purposes of Dark Magic. Expelliarmus, to my mind,
> used by a Dark wizard, to disarm a wizard who is trying to stop him becomes
> an Unforgivable Curse.  I would not consider Crucio, Imperio or other
> traditional UC spells to be gallant, however.

Montavilla47:
Do you really believe that?  That a disarming spell becomes Dark because 
it's used by a Dark Wizard?  So, the good or evil of something is determined
by *who* does it?  I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around that.

It seems to me that it's a workable system to classify the good or evilness
of an action by *intent,* so that if a wizard is using Expelliarmus to rob a 
bank, say, or disarm a wizard in order to kill or torture them, then it's an
evil act.  (Just as Scourgify is fine when used to clean the floor, but evil 
when it's used to torment or humiliate someone.)

But, it seems to me that you're saying that anytime Snape uses Expelliarmus
(on Lockhart, say), it's an evil act, whereas anytime that Dumbledore uses
the spell, it is, ipso facto, good.

 Lynda: 
> Neither did I think Molly
> Weasley turned into Ripley--Ripley is not the only person to have ever used
> that term before or since, or to have defended her offspring against
> something trying to kill them.

Montavilla47:
Nor is Charles Foster Kane the only person to say the word "Rosebud."  But
when you have another character saying that word on their deathbed, it 
inevitably reminds the audience of Citizen Kane.

>  Montavilla47:
> I was disappointed that Percy's main reconciliation seemed to be centered
> on the twins, when his break-up was with his father, since that was a
> reconciliation that could have ended any time in that last three books and
> been effective.
> 
> Lynda:
> Percy's falling out was with his entire family, not just his father, and the
> twins were the ones who most actively
> opposed him, even before he left the family cloister, so I thought it was
> appropriate that it was they he reconciled with first. Especially in light
> of the fact that one of them died in the battle.

Montavilla47:
I disagree.  By holding that moment back until the very end, that
subplot took on more weight than it should have.  Percy really had
nothing to apologize to his brothers for--the argument wasn't with
them but with his father.  They were only involved because they 
insisted on taking sides.  

> Montavilla47:
> I was disappointed the Grawp's contribution to the story
> turned out to be less than the trouble it took to bring him into it in the
> first place.
> 
> Lynda:
> What contribution? No. I haven't forgotten what he did, it was just so
> minimal as to be unremarkable.

Montavilla47:
Exactly.  His contribution was fight with the two giants that showed
up for Voldemort--and since those giants didn't really need to show
up in the first place, Grawp's contribution was quite unremarkable.

Yet, he was given a major set-up in OotP, and brought back in HBP
just so that we didn't forget him.

> Montavilla47:
> I was disappointed that Remus's efforts with the werewolves
> came to nothing.
> 
> Lynda: I was too. I was not expecting it too. Werewolves are nasty beasties
> for the most part, but it would have been nice to see a few more join in
> against the Dark Wizards.

Montavilla47:
Right.  Lupin was a major setup.  We had Dumbledore putting enormous
effort in getting him through school--against people who felt werewolves
shouldn't be educated.  We never see another werewolf in school, despite
learning the Fenrir was specifically creating child werewolves all along.

Then, we learn that Lupin is doing this dangerous, onorous liaison work
with the werewolves.  

Number of werewolves who showed up for the final battle:  Two.

A poor return for the setup.

Well, perhaps they were there and Harry just didn't notice.  Like
those Slytherins.

> Montavilla47:
> I was disappointed that the Power of Love didn't really
> apply to Harry at all--his main advantage turned out to be a technical
> one, based on his ability to grab and pull some else's wand out of their
> hand. That Power of Love actually applied to Snape--who was dead
> (Did it matter that Snape wasn't on Voldemort's side if he was dead?)
> 
> Lynda:
> Ah! Now here I disagree with you. The Power of Love that Harry had meant
> everything to the story. Without it He would never have survived and if
> Voldemort had been able to give up his anger and hatred ("try for a little
> remorse"). Of course it applied to Snape. It applied to every character in
> the story!

Montavilla47:
If you mean Harry wouldn't have survived the AK in the woods, then
you're wrong about that being due to the Power of Love.  That was due
to the Power of Blood.  It was Harry's blood in Voldemort's veins that
kept him alive.

If it was the original AK in Godric's Hollow, then it that was ultimately
due to Snape's love for Lily--and Lily's blood.  While it was love for 
Harry that caused Lily to stand in front of him, it wasn't her love that
saved him.  It was the choice she had, because of Snape's love for her,
that made the difference.  (As we see when the Bulgarian Mother is 
killed protecting her children.)

So, yes, it was the Power of Love at work there.  But it was a Power 
of Love only indirectly connected to Harry himself.

 
> Montavilla47:
> And yes, I was disappointed that the Sorting Hat's warning about unity
> only applied to three of the four Houses.
> 
> Lynda:
> I don't think that's the case. The Sorting Hat's warning applied to all four
> houses, it's just that every person had to make their own decision and only
> one Slytherin (Professor Slughorn), did. I was also happy that the senior
> Malfoys made a turn around and actually ended up helping Harry, if only
> indirectly.

Montavilla47:
They didn't really have a turnaround.  When Narcissa "helps" Harry, she's 
not doing it to help him.  She's simply lying so that she can get into the 
castle.  (Although how that helps, I couldn't tell you.)  But JKR is very careful 
to let us know that she's acting out of selfish love for her son.  

> Montavilla47:
> So, it wasn't really a big thing that disapointed me. It was a lot of little
> things--including the pacing of the book.
> And part of that disappointment came from JKR's own statement about
> having written the epilogue before starting the book, so that she'd
> know where she was going. I took that to mean that she did have a
> grand unified plan.
> 
> Lynda:
> Knowing the end of the story before writing the beginning, just means you
> know where you're headed. Not necessarily the nitpicky details.

Montavilla47:
Yes.  That's why it's a good idea to reread your books and look at the 
nitpicky details that are going to need to some resolution.






From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 25 18:57:12 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:57:12 -0000
Subject: Resolutions (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g3u3a0+336v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3u4e8+lqsj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183416

> > Magpie:
> > Snape (not Draco) killing him was the most important part of the 
> > precious plans. Whether Draco himself became a murderer didn't 
have
> a  quarter of the importance I thought it would have, myself. 
> 
> Pippin:
> But that's the point. The strategic purpose for saving Draco's soul
> was gone, but Dumbledore still took the time to save it, though that
> time could have been used for strategic purposes such as telling 
Harry
> about the sword.  

Magpie:
The strategic purpose wasn't gone. Severus, please...kill me like I 
asked you to.

Pippin: 
> Draco's soul is not valuable  because he was a cog in Dumbledore's
> wheels within wheels, or a potential hero, or the reformer of
> Slytherin House, or Harry's bestest friend, or the guy who
> will make the Trio sorry they ever assumed that Slytherins were no
> good, or because he could become a cool, sly, masterful Slytherin 
like
> Snape at Spinner's End. 
> It's valuable because...it exists. 

Magpie:
Not any more it isn't.

That's what I *thought* was important about it. I thought the story 
would underline this by showing that the soul of this highly flawed 
person is valuable just by existing in some unexpected way--iow, that 
Dumbledore's good act would turn out to have some result because he 
didn't do it for any strategic reason and in fact risked everything 
on this seemingly worthless thing. But in the end this act didn't 
interfere with Dumbledore's plan, he got to make some noises about 
what an epitome of goodness he is without putting anything on the 
line and without much of a result on Draco either way. The idea that 
his soul is important just because it exists was exactly what was 
undermined for me in DH. The strategic value of Draco not killing 
Dumbledore was that Snape was supposed to kill him. That was the 
plan. Luckily not knowing Draco was the master didn't screw anything 
up since Harry happened to have yoinked his wand earlier in the 
series. As opposed to, for instance, Harry *not* stealing Draco's 
wand and having Draco give him the wand as the logical result of all 
that came before with Harry and Dumbledore.

-m





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 19:22:34 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:22:34 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806250956g1d9891abn6ddde21c23ab084f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g3u5tq+jcv2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183417

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" <sweenlit at ...> wrote:
>
> By the way Montavilla, thank you for your response to my post. I understand
> your disappointment with some of those things and how they have hindered
> your enjoyment of the story, just see things a little differently than you
> in some cases.
> 
> Lynda
> 

Montavilla47:
Thank you, Lynda.  I posted a reply and I tried to keep my tone... um...
positive. :)

I may be disappointed with the last book, but my beef is strictly with
the book, and not with anyone who did enjoy it.  And, that disappointment
is because of the expectations I had for it.

I'm just not sure if I was being silly to have high expectations--or
silly to have the expectations I had.  Or whether JKR was better 
at the setup than the delivery.  

Not always, I think the resolutions of PoA and GoF were highly 
satisfying.  And I can forgive the logical holes <cough>portkey<cough> 
because the endings of the books were great.

Since the endings of GoF onwards were setups for the next book--
and since those setups were usually dashed in the next book*, it 
created a lot of tension going into that last.   Maybe that added
to my feeling let down.

Montavilla47

* To explain what I mean:  GoF ended with the idea of Dumbledore
gathering troops for an impending conflict.  Like Harry, I was quite
nonplussed to find out in the next book that everything was in a 
holding pattern until the Ministry acknowledged Voldemort's 
existence.

OotP ended with the knowledge that Harry was going to have to 
kill Voldemort.  Okay, we knew that from the beginning, but it was
now real--and we'd need to deal with that in the next book.  We also
left Harry grieving over Sirius and with that Occlumency problem, and
hating Snape more than ever.  

But when HBP started, Harry was done grieving, Voldemort was 
conveniently  blocking Harry (no need for Occlumency after all!) and the 
hatred for Snape just kept simmering along with the only development 
being that Harry hated Snape MORE at the end.

So, going into DH, the big question was--what was going to happen
when Harry and Snape met up?  But then Harry started obsessing
about Dumbledore instead.  So, when Harry met up with Snape he 
felt... nothing much.  





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 19:33:28 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:33:28 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3mums+a898@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3u6i9+jm8k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183418

Betsy Hp:
> > > <snip>
> > > In the end, Slytherin is the "racist house."
> > > <snip>
>  
> > >>Zara:
> > Presumably, Slytherin was invited to found Hogwarts because he was
a good friend of the other founders, especially Godric...<snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> That's what confuses me.  Why was Godric (and the rest *g*)
attracted to a racist?  I mean, Salazar wasn't subtle -- he out and
out stated that as far as he was concerned, certain students need not
apply.
> 
Carol responds:

Maybe we need an older analogy than American racism. After all, the
Wizards and Muggles in the HP books are almost all British and mostly
white. The concept of race as we know it (white, black, Asian) is
touched on but never discussed by the characters, who take such things
as interracial dating for granted.

Muggles are not members of a different race. In fact, all the Muggles
that we encounter are white, just like most of the Wizards (Angelina,
Dean, Lee, Kingsley, Cho, and the Patil twins being notable
exceptions) and all the main characters. What distinguishes Muggles
from Wizards (aside from the inability to perform magic, which is
really the *main* difference) is their "blood." It's almost a class
prejudice rather than a racial one. Pure-blood Wizards are "nature's
aristocracy," just as "blue-blooded" Muggles were England's (and the
rest of Europe's) aristocracy for hundreds of years. If you didn't
have royal blood, you couldn't rule. If you didn't have at least noble
blood, you couldn't marry a king (or queen). To this day, the UK has a
House of Lords and a House of Commons, the latter representing those
who, like most of us, don't have any noble blood.

Muggles are "commoners," their base blood excluding them from the
privilege of belonging to the WW. The extreme view that Muggles should
be dominated by wizards and made to serve them resembles aristocratic
treatment of serfs and peasants. (I'm not saying that all aristocrats
behaved in this disreputable manner; some of them believed in noblesse
oblige while others thought nothing of seizing lands they wanted from
rich commoners and even worse atrocities. But none of them would have
treated a farmer in the same way that they treated a duke or an earl,
and the chances of a farmer's son becoming a courtier were remote.)

To get back to Salazar Slytherin, he didn't want upstart Muggle-borns
(who might be treacherously allied to witch-burning Muggles, but
that's beside the point I'm making here) usurping the rights of
Pure-Blood Witches and Wizards, any more than medieval knights and
nobles would have wanted commoners usurping their places at court.

Godric Gryffindor was probably a Pure-blood, too, the friend and equal
of Salazar Slytherin. It was only when he wanted to limit a magical
education to those he considered worthy, those who were qualified by
"blood" as well as ability, that he and Godric began to disagree. And
it seems that, for awhile, Salazar was content to choose the students
he wanted for his own House and let the other three Founders do the
same, and the others were content to let him limit his selection to
Pure-bloods "of great ambition." They would not have labeled him a
racist; neither the term nor the concept existed. Apparently, it was
only when he went too far and apparently wanted to impose the
Pure-blood limitation on the whole school that the dueling and other
disturbances began.

As for a young Wizard liking another with extreme ideas regarding the
superiority of one group over another, just think of Dumbledore and
Grindelwald. For all we know, Salazar Slytherin was as charmingly
persuasive as GG--or the snake in Eden. I have no doubt at all that
Godric and Salazar really were the best of friends.

Carol, who thinks that the analogy between Pure-blood Wizards as a
natural aristocracy and medieval European aristocracy (also
"blood"-based) is obvious from the title "Nature's Nobility: A
Wizarding Genealogy"




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 19:56:37 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:56:37 -0000
Subject: Resolutions (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g3u4e8+lqsj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3u7tl+jfav@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183419

> Magpie:
Luckily not knowing Draco was the master didn't screw anything 
> up since Harry happened to have yoinked his wand earlier in the 
> series. As opposed to, for instance, Harry *not* stealing Draco's 
> wand and having Draco give him the wand as the logical result of all 
> that came before with Harry and Dumbledore.

Montavilla47:
Oh, wouldn't that have been great?  I liked that idea when Maya
tossed it off in her review of DH, but the way you're describing it
now.... with Draco deliberately handing his wand to Harry.

That would be a powerful moment.

It's not like I don't get that idea Pippin's expounding--that
Draco shouldn't *have* to contribute anything to the good
side to be saved from murdering and saved from death.

I get that.  Morally, it makes a lot of sense.

But, dramatically, it's frustrating as hell.
  




From kennyg1864 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 19:01:26 2008
From: kennyg1864 at yahoo.com (kennyg1864)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:01:26 -0000
Subject: Some more thoughts on the Fidelius Charm (was: Re: Question #3)
In-Reply-To: <g3u0hi+3eft@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3u4m7+2a67@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183420


  > Ceridwen:
> DD couldn't have cast the charm or he would have known that Peter was
> the SK, not Sirius. He would have had to know who he was binding in
> the thing, or he could not have performed the spell.

Good point--my mistake for not distinguishing between "good speculation"
and "bad speculation" during my recent research on the missing 24 hours.
:P

So then...who cast the FC?

This author of the article linked below makes the valid suggestion that
(for objects, at least, and maybe for people too) you cannot cast a FC
on something that doesn't belong to you (think about it).  She therefore
suggests that Lily herself (or perhaps James) cast the FC on "the
Potters in their house".

Note that unlike with Grimmauld Place, the FC was not on the house
itself--i.e., the house could still be seen, but no one could see the
Potters in it.

(an excellent essay on FC's, both on Grimmauld Place and on the Potters,
including how Hagrid could find the latter)

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-fidelius.html
<http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-fidelius.html>

This also means that DD could know of the house's existence, but he
couldn't know that the Potters were in it, nor could he see them in it. 
He probably did know that was where they were *supposed* to be, as he
alone knew of Harry's importance (due to the Prophecy) and likely made
the suggestion to Lily to cast the FC and designate a SK.  It's just
that afterwards, he couldn't know for certain they were there.

(which itself implies that he also suggested to Lily that they not move
anywhere else, because (a) Harry wouldn't be protected and (b) DD
wouldn't know the difference between "moved away" and "not visible due
to the FC"!)

But that still begs the question, "How did DD discover/detect that
something had happened there on Oct 31?"  Either someone told him
(Bathilda via "remote Patronus", perhaps?), or he had something like a
"transmitting Sneakoscope" in place, with a receiver amongst the myriad
devices in his office.

We know it was a very quick notification, as Hagrid was able to get
there before Muggles could investigate the now-ruined second floor.

In any event, DD didn't know that Wormtail was the Secret Keeper, else
(as Ceridwen pointed out), allowing Sirius' imprisonment would have been
criminal.

kennyg1864, who thinks that Lieutenant Columbo could have figured this
out at the time, had someone had the presence of mind to call him in




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jun 25 20:54:50 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:54:50 -0000
Subject: D
In-Reply-To: <g3u4e8+lqsj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3ubaq+cn7p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183421

 
> > Pippin:
> > But that's the point. The strategic purpose for saving Draco's
soul was gone, but Dumbledore still took the time to save it, though
that time could have been used for strategic purposes such as telling 
> Harry about the sword.  
> 
> Magpie:
> The strategic purpose wasn't gone. Severus, please...kill me like I 
> asked you to.

Pippin:
But that was only necessary because of the UV, which wouldn't have
been activated if Dumbledore had simply let Draco kill him.   
> 
> Pippin:  
> > It's valuable because...it exists. 
> 
> Magpie:
> Not any more it isn't.
> 
> That's what I *thought* was important about it. I thought the story 
> would underline this by showing that the soul of this highly flawed 
> person is valuable just by existing in some unexpected way--iow,
that  Dumbledore's good act would turn out to have some result because
he  didn't do it for any strategic reason and in fact risked
everything  on this seemingly worthless thing. 

Pippin:
Well, Killer!Draco might have behaved a lot more decisively in Malfoy
Manor, and not in a good way. But that's just speculation.

I'm puzzled by your argument. We seem to agree  that Draco's soul
should be valuable just because it is a human soul. But I can't see
how having Draco do some great thing for Harry would validate this
idea. For me it does the opposite. It would say that a flawed
existence is only worthwhile if the person  eventually proves himself
in some practical fashion. Just bringing a little more love into the
world wouldn't be enough. 
 
Pippin 








From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 20:58:11 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:58:11 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3sgij+ugv8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3ubh3+d6vp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183422

> >>Zara:
> When did the Founders claim not to be thrilled with the values     
> Salazar Slytherin espoused at the time they all founded the school 
> together? On the contrary, the fact that they did found a school    
> together, suggests to me that they all considered the others'      
> values to be within acceptable bounds. My conclusion is racism      
> concerned them far less than it does you.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, probably. :)  And I also agree that the Founders showed a certain 
level of agreement to Salzar's beliefs.  They may not have been so... 
*passionate* about it, but they must have seen a certain level of 
sense and logic in codifying the segregation of muggleborns from 
portions of the student body.  After all, as Pippin points out:

> >>Pippin:
> But segregation is what Salazar was all about.
> <snip>
> Once they'd workd out the house compromise, there's no canon that   
> any of the Founders objected to Slytherin's desire to choose his own
> students as he saw fit. They enshrined his criteria forever in the
> Sorting Hat along with their own, so why would they object after
> Salazar had departed? According to the Sorting Hat, the quarrel    
> which finally divided the school wasn't about racism in any form,   
> it was about which of the Founders should be in control, and all of 
> them were contending.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Right.  So, near as I can figure it, all of the Founders were anti-
muggleborn to a certain extent (otherwise they'd have not invited 
Slazar, or un-invited him, or drastically changed or closed down 
Slytherin after he left on his own), just Salazar was more in-your-
face about it.

So Slytherin became the *face* of Wizarding racism, but was 
reflecting the actual thoughts of Hogwarts as a whole (as Hogwarts 
supported Slytherin and it's values).  Salazar *himself* became 
annoying; his values did not.

I agree with that.

> >>Zara
> Which makes lots of sense to me, it would be a rather exotic       
> concern for 10th cetury Britain.

Betsy Hp:
But these are exotic 10th century Britons.  They're founding a school 
their world had never seen the like of.  And the idea of educating 
young muggleborns beside their wizardborn counterparts *must* have 
come under discussion since Salazar made a point of saying "*no* 
muggleborns in my house, thank you."  (For example, I doubt signs 
saying "Irish need not apply" didn't pop up in the States until the 
Irish did. *g*)

> >>Zara:
> It is also my opinion, that the wizard in the alley in late        
> twentieth century Britain is a lot less concerned about racism than 
> you are, which is why the idea of closing Slytherin House would    
> still have been a wild-eyed one.

Betsy Hp:
I totally agree.  I'm still a bit stunned that this generation of 
Wizards are so little concerned about racism; I was expecting a bit 
more wild-eyed idealism out of the Trio.  But yeah, Hogwarts still 
codifies the segregation of muggleborns.  Everyone is still fine with 
it.

Betsy Hp




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 25 21:02:18 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:02:18 -0000
Subject: Resolutions (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g3u7tl+jfav@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3uboq+htr8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183423

> Montavilla47:
> Oh, wouldn't that have been great?  I liked that idea when Maya
> tossed it off in her review of DH, but the way you're describing it
> now.... with Draco deliberately handing his wand to Harry.
> 
> That would be a powerful moment.
> 
> It's not like I don't get that idea Pippin's expounding--that
> Draco shouldn't *have* to contribute anything to the good
> side to be saved from murdering and saved from death.
> 
> I get that.  Morally, it makes a lot of sense.
> 
> But, dramatically, it's frustrating as hell.

Magpie:
Yes, for me, it's not that he has to contribute in order to be worth 
saving--not at all. It's important that he's not being saved *because* 
he's expected to contribute. But dramatically there's a difference 
between Dumbledore and Harry saying that and just showing they're good 
guys and having this shown as not only something that shows you're good 
but something that is true and has some positive effect. Not by Draco 
being the big hero, but just in having a logical outcome of a good 
action taken. Especially since by the end of DH that would have seemed 
far more logical than some other things that Draco did for me. This, I 
thought, would be the germ of hope that things could change in the 
future. It added to my general feeling of hitting my head on a 
surprisingly low ceiling in DH. The lesson is the same (good people 
save people who don't deserve it) but it's more tell don't show.

Pippin:
But that was only necessary because of the UV, which wouldn't have
been activated if Dumbledore had simply let Draco kill him.

Magpie:
Why wouldn't he still want Snape to kill him like he always had? The 
pleading makes less sense if he's just reminding Snape not to drop 
dead. 

Pippin:
For me it does the opposite. It would say that a flawed
existence is only worthwhile if the person eventually proves himself
in some practical fashion. Just bringing a little more love into the
world wouldn't be enough.

Magpie:
I don't think it undercuts that to let the love brought into the world 
actually has some effect and is not just about the good character of 
the good guys compared to the bad. 

-m




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Wed Jun 25 22:36:24 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:36:24 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3u5tq+jcv2@eGroups.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806250956g1d9891abn6ddde21c23ab084f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g3u5tq+jcv2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806251536o5adfbb32l3dec8416a5fb4de6@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183424

I had high expectations too, and not all of them were met. We do have some
differences in viewpoint and I'm getting ready to send a reply to your other
reply to clarify a couple of things.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Jun 25 23:19:32 2008
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:19:32 -0000
Subject: How Sorting works (was...Slytherins are Bad)
In-Reply-To: <g3tl3k+drj2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3ujq4+8c15@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183425


> 
> Alla:
>  But Ravenclaws are sorted for intellect, are they not? Have no book
> with me and I believe it can be intepreted as high academical
> achievement. And I found out that the saying that talent is 99% work
> and only 1% of gift has a lot of truth in it.
> 
> Magpie:
> I've always thought it sorted more on values. Hermione, for 
instance, 
> has perfect grades, but she values other things more. Her intellect 
> is mostly only important for the kind of changes she wants to make 
in 
> the world--her fighting for others, which is more about bravery.
> 
> But as a better example, there's Neville. Neville seems quite timid 
> when he first comes to Hogwarts. His courage "grade" would be low. 
> But he probably values bravery, and like many people, he eventually 
> becomes what he admires. The fact that he's scared a lot at 11 
> doesn't keep him from being a Gryffindor. Peter, too, must have 
> valued bravery, even if he eventually failed at being brave. (I 
tend 
> to think of Lockhart as a Gryffindor too.)
> 

Julie:
This is exactly how I see the Sorting too. It also helps tie
in with the implication that where the child desires to be
sorted (or not sorted--"Not Slytherin. Not Slytherin!") is a 
critical component in the Sorting Hat's decision-making
process. I've generally thought of the four houses in the
sense of what the child/person most wants out of life:

Gryffindor: to be admired
Hufflepuff: To belong
Ravenclaw: To be right
Slytherin: to win

As you say, Magpie, this explains Neville, Hermione, and
Peter all being in Gryffindor, Snape being in Slytherin
(as his strongest asset in the end was courage rather than
ambition), Percy being in Gryffindor, etc, etc. It's still
not perfect (why wasn't Remus in Hufflepuff for instance,
when there wasn't anyone else in the books who would do
so much--or so little--to avoid being on the outside looking
in). But it works better than the children having certain
inborn traits like loyalty, or courage, or ambition, or
intellect (which, IMO, all come in so many forms it's hard
to call them set personality traits, like shyness or 
recklessness might be).

Julie, who likes most to be right, and recognizes that this
is an equally good and bad thing, as are all desires depending
on how we pursue and express them.




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 23:22:06 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:22:06 -0000
Subject: Fidelius Confundus (was: Re: Question #3)
In-Reply-To: <48626B60.4080501@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g3ujuu+g5di@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183426

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> 
wrote:

> So the Charm apparently was cast somewhere after Harry's first 
> arrival at the cottage, but before his return after Dobby's 
> burial. But Harry was able to find his way back 
> notwithstanding. Which suggests anyone in sight (or at least with 
> knowledge) of the secreted place at the time of the casting isn't 
> subject to the Charm.


You know, I think it's possible that when the FC is cast on a house, 
it may include some space around it. The Charm on 12 GP includes only 
the top step of the stairs, but that house is in London, and it 
doesn't seem to have any land attached to it, like a small garden, 
for example - the stairs just lead to the street. 

Shell Cottage is in the country and it comes with some land, I 
suppose. Could the Charm include not only the building itself, but 
also some of the land on which it stands? Then Harry, who was in the 
garden when the FC was cast, would be able to see it, because he kind 
of was "inside" when it happened, just like everybody else in the 
house. Defensive charms on Tonks' house and on The Burrow at the 
beginning of the book (although they were not Fidelius) worked 
exactly like this.

OTOH, it's possible that if those who were inside the house at the 
time of the casting of the FC needed to leave, they wouldn't be able 
to see the house anymore after they crossed the boundary, so they 
wouldn't be able to return if they were not told the secret by the 
SK. Just a suggestion ... :-).


zanooda




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Wed Jun 25 23:24:21 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:24:21 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3u4cj+d7r@eGroups.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806250950r6beab4b9l5786f6b55dbdd716@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g3u4cj+d7r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806251624u3b4639actd867c16823c6e25d@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183427

Lynda:
I will be snipping this time!

Lynda:
>I never really did join the Snape/Lilly camp. I wasn't disappointed
> by its inclusion, just didn't see a lot of evidence for it throughout the
> books--I was, however early to realize that the horrible boy Petunia rants
> about was Snape, not James.

Montavilla47:
I figured out that Snape was the awful boy fairly early. Around HBP, anyway,

when I really put effort into figuring things out at all.

Lynda:
I figured it out earlier than that. Around GOF, think. Since I read a lot
and my entire family is into the HP books, print versions, audio versions
and especially since our selection of audios is limited to three of the HP
books and a couple by other writers, the books get a lot of play. My
selection of print books is far larger. I just packed up over a hundred for
a yard sale in a couple of weeks.

Montavilla47:
Well, I'm aware that teens can be angsty, but that doesn't mean I want to
listen to them angst. And it's not like Dumbledore's actions of a hundred
years ago have anything to do with Harry.

Lynda:
No, but I know more than a few teens who would have a similar reaction. And
I'm used to adults not liking to deal with teenage angst. I'm in a fortunate
spot. No teens in the home (ever--I don't have kids) but I work with special
needs kids, and if you want angsty. . .so I do deal with it, but I get to
leave it at work.

Montavilla47:
Well, the only time I can think of that they were *that* silly was in OotP,
when they decide to hurry off to rescue Sirius, when--as soon as
Umbridge was out of the picture--they were free to use her fireplace
to contact Arthur and Molly--or even floo directly to 12 Grimauld Place,
if they were determined to go to the Ministry.

Lynda:
I don't think what they did was silly. Yes, they could have used the
fireplaces to contact others. In DH, that is. But the were rightly worried
about the safety of their family and friends, who were being watched they
knew, by the Deatheaters.

Montavilla47:
Yes, he goes after the Horcrux, after McGonagall reminds him that all the
stuff he's watching is specifically being done so that he can--and that the
longer it takes him, the more likely it is that people are going to die.

Lynda:
Yep. All, I think because of the feeling of wanting to join the battle and
fight alongside and for his friends.

Montavilla47
Which, I suppose, gets to my fundamental problem with Harry as a
character (which is different from any problem with JKR as a writer): Harry
is the worst leader in the world.

Lynda:
Agreed. His leadership skills are minimal.

> Montavilla47:
> I was disappointed that Draco Malfoy never seemed to get beyond that
> moment on the Tower when his wand drooped a tiny bit. He spent all of
> DH with his wand metaphorically drooping just a tiny bit (until he didn't
> have a wand at all).
>
> Lynda:
> I never expected big changes from Malfoy. It would have been nice, but not
> expected.

Montavilla47:
But I'm not even talking about a big change. I'm talking about getting off
the fence. Otherwise, what's the point of setting him up with a choice to
begin with?

Lynda:
But, that decision, to get off the fence could have led to a big change. I'm
agreeing with you here. I would have liked to have seen that, even hoped for
it, but I did not really expect it.

>
>
> Lynda:
> I always believed that the Unforgivable Curses were only Unforgivable if
> they were used for the purposes of Dark Magic. Expelliarmus, to my mind,
> used by a Dark wizard, to disarm a wizard who is trying to stop him
becomes
> an Unforgivable Curse. I would not consider Crucio, Imperio or other
> traditional UC spells to be gallant, however.
Montavilla47:
Do you really believe that? That a disarming spell becomes Dark because
it's used by a Dark Wizard?

Lynda:
Here's where I need to clarify my idea. I think that the goodness or
evilness in a spell is in the intent of the spellcaster. A spell cast with
the intent to cause harm to another has the potential of being a dark spell.
A spell cast with the intent to defend oneself or another has the potential
of not being dark magic. Intention is the key. Not every spell cast by every
dark wizard will be dark magic. As you say, a wizard using expelliarmus to
rob a bank commits an evil act. A wizard, however, who uses imperio to make
someone put down a handgun and keeps that person from killing someone else
commits an act of good intent. I hope that's clearer now.

Lynda:
> Neither did I think Molly
> Weasley turned into Ripley--Ripley is not the only person to have ever
used
> that term before or since, or to have defended her offspring against
> something trying to kill them.
Montavilla47:
Nor is Charles Foster Kane the only person to say the word "Rosebud." But
when you have another character saying that word on their deathbed, it
inevitably reminds the audience of Citizen Kane.

Lynda:
In both instances I would consider that a tribute to the original rather
than otherwise, although admitedly moreso with Rosebud. I had to explain
some people's disappointment with the Molly/Ripley scene to several people
btw. They had never seen the Alien movies (by choice) and were unaware of
the similarity

> Lynda:
> Percy's falling out was with his entire family, not just his father, and
the
> twins were the ones who most actively
> opposed him, even before he left the family cloister, so I thought it was
> appropriate that it was they he reconciled with first. Especially in light
> of the fact that one of them died in the battle.
Montavilla47:
I disagree. By holding that moment back until the very end, that
subplot took on more weight than it should have. Percy really had
nothing to apologize to his brothers for--the argument wasn't with
them but with his father. They were only involved because they
insisted on taking sides.

Lynda:
They hadn't gotten along with Percy for years before he left the family. I
don't think their pretty constant references to him in a derogatory fashion
throughout the earlier books was simple sibling rivalry. Never did, really
(I did not like Percy from SS--thought he was--well a git) so I tend to
think that his return to the family fold was at just the right time and the
right place as well. There was time to apologize to his dad, but not the
twins. Not then.

> Montavilla47:
> I was disappointed that the Power of Love didn't really
> apply to Harry at all--his main advantage turned out to be a technical
> one, based on his ability to grab and pull some else's wand out of their
> hand. That Power of Love actually applied to Snape--who was dead
> (Did it matter that Snape wasn't on Voldemort's side if he was dead?)
>
> Lynda:
> Ah! Now here I disagree with you. The Power of Love that Harry had meant
> everything to the story. Without it He would never have survived and if
> Voldemort had been able to give up his anger and hatred ("try for a little
> remorse"). Of course it applied to Snape. It applied to every character in
> the story!

Montavilla47:
If you mean Harry wouldn't have survived the AK in the woods, then
you're wrong about that being due to the Power of Love. That was due
to the Power of Blood. It was Harry's blood in Voldemort's veins that
kept him alive.

If it was the original AK in Godric's Hollow, then it that was ultimately
due to Snape's love for Lily--and Lily's blood. While it was love for
Harry that caused Lily to stand in front of him, it wasn't her love that
saved him. It was the choice she had, because of Snape's love for her,
that made the difference. (As we see when the Bulgarian Mother is
killed protecting her children.)
So, yes, it was the Power of Love at work there. But it was a Power
of Love only indirectly connected to Harry himself.

Lynda: I'm going to disagree with you here. The Power of Blood was
important, but the Power of Love even moreso. It's the key to the books.


Montavilla47:
They didn't really have a turnaround. When Narcissa "helps" Harry, she's
not doing it to help him. She's simply lying so that she can get into the
castle.

Lynda:
She's doing it to make sure Draco is safe, which is another notch on the
belt for the Power of Love. Selfish love, maybe, but she's doing it out of
love.

> Montavilla47:
> So, it wasn't really a big thing that disapointed me. It was a lot of
little
> things--including the pacing of the book.
> And part of that disappointment came from JKR's own statement about
> having written the epilogue before starting the book, so that she'd
> know where she was going. I took that to mean that she did have a
> grand unified plan.
>
Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Jun 25 23:57:38 2008
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:57:38 -0000
Subject: Resolutions (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g3u4e8+lqsj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3um1i+evpd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183428


> 
> Pippin: 
> > Draco's soul is not valuable  because he was a cog in Dumbledore's
> > wheels within wheels, or a potential hero, or the reformer of
> > Slytherin House, or Harry's bestest friend, or the guy who
> > will make the Trio sorry they ever assumed that Slytherins were no
> > good, or because he could become a cool, sly, masterful Slytherin 
> like
> > Snape at Spinner's End. 
> > It's valuable because...it exists. 
> 
> Magpie:
> Not any more it isn't.
> 
> That's what I *thought* was important about it. I thought the story 
> would underline this by showing that the soul of this highly flawed 
> person is valuable just by existing in some unexpected way--iow, 
that 
> Dumbledore's good act would turn out to have some result because he 
> didn't do it for any strategic reason and in fact risked everything 
> on this seemingly worthless thing. But in the end this act didn't 
> interfere with Dumbledore's plan, he got to make some noises about 
> what an epitome of goodness he is without putting anything on the 
> line and without much of a result on Draco either way. The idea 
that 
> his soul is important just because it exists was exactly what was 
> undermined for me in DH. 

Julie:
Again I agree with you, Magpie :-) I argued vehemently for
a truly caring Dumbledore who gave out second chances primarily
for the sake of the person desiring/needing that second chance,
and who believed even the most damaged souls deserved to be 
saved. The Tower scene in HBP sealed it for me. And then DH
unsealed it, when we learned that saving Draco's soul is just
part of a strategic plan. 

Yes, Dumbledore suggests Draco's soul isn't as tainted as
Snape's, but it still read strongly to me that Dumbledore 
isn't so much in the saving souls business as he is into 
carrying out his grand plan to defeat Voldemort. And I can't
say we weren't clued in, as Dumbledore had expressed little 
interest in any of his students' souls before, never making
an observable effort to prevent any student from joining 
Voldemort's camp, not when Snape was a student, nor in 
Harry's student days when Voldemort makes his triumphant
return and everyone knows he is actively recruiting new
DEs, particularly the already primed children of his current
DEs (Slytherins, for the most part). 

Once I realized Dumbledore had never concerned himself 
with saving student souls, not to mention that he also
wasn't particularly interested in the eventual fate of
Snape's soul (and even Alla expected Dumbledore to dismiss
the mere concept of Snape risking his soul even for the sake
of the Plan), I realized that Dumbledore was in fact all
about the Plan and his goal of "saving" the WW, never mind
the individuals within it. (And he even considered it a 
personal weakness that he came to care for Harry so deeply
that Harry's fate mattered nearly as much to him as the
fate of the WW itself.)

All this to say I don't think Dumbledore finds Draco's 
soul intrinsically valuable or important. He could save
it, so he did, and made note of it. But if saving Draco's
soul had interfered with his Plan, he would easily and
with little remorse have let it go to its doom for the
greater good. Given that Dumbledore willingly sacrificed
his own life for the greater good, I'm not even saying he
was wrong. Just that he turned out to be much colder and
more calculating than I believed him to be throughout the
first six books. I still admire many of his qualities and
what he accomplished, but in the end I don't revere him 
or love him as I expected I would had I been asked before
DH. And while he may be the epitome of a war general, a
not inconsequential achievement, I can't really see him as 
the epitome of goodness.
 
All IMO of course,

Julie 




From dongan51 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 17:33:59 2008
From: dongan51 at yahoo.com (Liz P)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Fidelius Confundus (was: Re: Question #3)
Message-ID: <886822.82918.qm@web63904.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183429

CJ:
Can a Fidelius actually be broken? <snip>

Liz:
I actually just read a lovely article on this. You can read it here:
http://www.beyondhogwarts.com/harry-potter/articles/the-secrets-of-the-fidelius-charm.html



From kennyg1864 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 25 21:36:06 2008
From: kennyg1864 at yahoo.com (kennyg1864)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:36:06 -0000
Subject: Question #3a (the question that was apparently missed :-) )
In-Reply-To: <g3rp55+trlr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3udo6+t5mh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183430


...since wizards don't have "fellytones", how do they gossip/spread
rumors in the first chapters of SS/PS? Apparating to your wizard
neighbor, and knocking on the door? (doesn't leave much room for
privacy...) I mean, sure, there's the wizard pubs, but how does
"house-to-house" gossip spread?

And I'm guessing there's a way to "lock out" incoming visitors to your
fireplace, at your home (for obvious reasons) and at shops (else
Mundungus could help himself to your wares at off hours, although I
suppose you could just cast a Caterwauling Charm as you lock up for the
night).

If so, the Floo network doesn't work well for rumor-spreading
(especially at 1 or 2 in the morning on Nov. 1).

So in my mind that leaves:

1. The "remote Patronus" we saw in DH, although it appears to be limited
to a few words.  And it may be that only highly skilled wizards can
conjure the talking variety.

2. Apparating house-to-house, which I guess is OK at 2 am if one has
important news like the death of LV.

3. Owls, but they can't be *that* fast, especially across long distances
like Godric's Hollow to Little Whinging (where there does seem to be an
extraordinary concentration of wizards, doesn't there?)

4. Sticking one's head in the fireplace, but (a) that gets uncomfortable
for serious chatting, and (b)I'm guessing most wizards would have theirs
locked after they go to bed.

5. Wizard pubs, as mentioned above, or even the streets outside them,
but only useful where groups of wizards are actually congregating.

So in SS/PS I'm guessing we had a combination of #2 and 5 (if their pubs
are even open that late!), followed by a flurry of #3.

Any others I'm missing?


kennyg1864, who is frankly baffled by Madam Rosmerta's refusal to
connect her home fireplace to his







From juli17 at aol.com  Thu Jun 26 00:24:09 2008
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:24:09 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806251624u3b4639actd867c16823c6e25d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g3unj9+l78u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183431


> >
> > Lynda:
> > I always believed that the Unforgivable Curses were only 
Unforgivable if
> > they were used for the purposes of Dark Magic. Expelliarmus, to 
my mind,
> > used by a Dark wizard, to disarm a wizard who is trying to stop 
him
> becomes
> > an Unforgivable Curse. I would not consider Crucio, Imperio or 
other
> > traditional UC spells to be gallant, however.
> Montavilla47:
> Do you really believe that? That a disarming spell becomes Dark 
because
> it's used by a Dark Wizard?
> 
> Lynda:
> Here's where I need to clarify my idea. I think that the goodness or
> evilness in a spell is in the intent of the spellcaster. A spell 
cast with
> the intent to cause harm to another has the potential of being a 
dark spell.
> A spell cast with the intent to defend oneself or another has the 
potential
> of not being dark magic. Intention is the key. Not every spell cast 
by every
> dark wizard will be dark magic. As you say, a wizard using 
expelliarmus to
> rob a bank commits an evil act. A wizard, however, who uses imperio 
to make
> someone put down a handgun and keeps that person from killing 
someone else
> commits an act of good intent. I hope that's clearer now.

Julie:
It's clear, but it's not at all what JKR wrote. There are
three Unforgivables, capitalized, named and defined. Dark
Magic is distinct and identifiable, as Lily tells us in one of 
Snape's Pensieve scenes in DH. Snape had his friends practice
"Dark Magic" while James and his friends don't, even though
the latter have no higher motives or intentions than the
former as both intend harm (even when it's emotional in the
form of humiliation it is intentionally harmful). 


Though in the end JKR's Dark Magic isn't very clear at all.
We learn that Aurors so use Unforgivables as a last resort.
And finally we see Harry throwing around Unforgivables not
as a last resort but merely for vengeful satisfaction (at 
least the Crucio falls in this category). So admittedly
the issue becomes cloudy, which IMO is faulty writing on
JKR's part. It's an inconsistency that shouldn't be there. 

<<snip>>

> >
> > Lynda:
> > ...The Power of Love that Harry had meant
> > everything to the story. Without it He would never have survived 
and if
> > Voldemort had been able to give up his anger and hatred ("try for 
a little
> > remorse"). Of course it applied to Snape. It applied to every 
character in
> > the story!
> 
> Montavilla47:
> If you mean Harry wouldn't have survived the AK in the woods, then
> you're wrong about that being due to the Power of Love. That was due
> to the Power of Blood. It was Harry's blood in Voldemort's veins 
that
> kept him alive.
> 
> If it was the original AK in Godric's Hollow, then it that was 
ultimately
> due to Snape's love for Lily--and Lily's blood. While it was love 
for
> Harry that caused Lily to stand in front of him, it wasn't her love 
that
> saved him. It was the choice she had, because of Snape's love for 
her,
> that made the difference. (As we see when the Bulgarian Mother is
> killed protecting her children.)
> So, yes, it was the Power of Love at work there. But it was a Power
> of Love only indirectly connected to Harry himself.
> 
> Lynda: I'm going to disagree with you here. The Power of Blood was
> important, but the Power of Love even moreso. It's the key to the 
books.

Julie:
Here I agree with you, Lynda. While Lily's blood "seals" the 
protection Harry receives both at Privet Drive and against
Voldemort, I do think her love for Harry was the element
that sealed the magic. Yes, Snape's love also gave her the
choice to live, or to die for Harry. But it was Lily's 
willingless to sacrifce herself that sealed the magic in
her blood. At least that's my interpretation, and since how
the protection actually worked is never spelled out, I'm
sticking with it. In the end it was the Power of Love doubled
(Snape's and Lily's) that saved Harry.

Julie, wondering if maybe this realization is why Harry
named his second child after Snape ;-)




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 00:45:19 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:45:19 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g35q02+u7th@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3uoqv+1rse@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183432

> > In post 183133 "Mike" wrote:
> > 
> > I wanted to know if you liked Severus Snape. 
> > I don't want to know if you liked having his character in the
> > books, I've already said that I liked having Snape in the books
> > and I hate the guy. I'm not really asking if you sympathize or
> > empathize with him. Heck, I sympathize with the young Severus 
> > in the playground with Lily, pre-Hogwarts. No, what I want 
> > to know is if you *liked* Severus? 
> 
> Potioncat:
> <snip> 
> It isn't an easy question to answer.
> 
> Severus Snape is still something of an enigma, so that those who 
> would count him as friend don't agree on who the man was, and
> those who see him as foe, see him all together differently-- and
> as varied-- than the first group. So, if I answer, yes, I liked
> him, it wouldn't be same Snape that some of you see.

Mike now:
I thought I would answer my own question. No wait,... I already 
answered it didn't I? Well then I'll expound on my answer. A good 
place to start is in response to what PC just wrote above.

I not only think friend and foe see him differently, I think we met 
three different Severus Snapes. He starts out as TAB -- "That Awful 
Boy" -- Snape, a suprisingly (to me) likable young wizard, from a 
tough home life. I felt sorry for TAB and wanted to root for him to 
get to Hogwarts and change his life around. But even TAB shows signs 
of his disdain for those lesser than him. He denegrates Petunia 
with "you're a Muggle" upon first meeting her and right in front of 
Lily. Not much tact on young TAB's part, was it? ;-) 

[Side note: Did TAB Snape go to Muggle primary school? I ask because 
Petunia knew who he was and where he lived. I can't see that being 
the case unless they went to the same school. I sure don't think much 
of his witch mother and I could easily see his domineering Muggle 
father demanding their household function as fully Muggle, including 
sending Sev to the local Muggle school.]

But all-in-all, I'd say that TAB Snape was more likeable than not. 
That goes for right up through the train ride to Hogwarts, where I 
think he acquitted himself much better than did James or Sirius.

Then we met Snivellus Snape. Now we heard stories about Snivellus in 
PoA and GoF, and got a snapshot of him in SWM in OotP. If, as Alla 
hypothesized, we had met James, Sirius, and Snivellus in SWM before 
any of the other back story, I might not have had the same opinion of 
any of the three. But that's not the way the story unfolded, and I 
felt vindicated in my opinion when I saw Snivellus in "The Prince's 
Tale". Sneaking around, trying to get something on the Marauders, 
hoping to get them expelled, all the while breaking the rules himself 
in his attempt to collect this information. 

Hanging around with future Death Eaters, in fact, fancying himself as 
the same. If he had been a dullert or a bully I could forgive him for 
being seduced to the dark side. I think that's what happened to 
Regulus. But Snivellus surely didn't have parents that were backing 
Voldemort, and everything points to Snivellus being much brighter 
than a Mulciber or an Avery. I think I've a right to have expected 
better from him. This is where Snape becomes irretrievable for me. 
Once we were shown that he was a true believer at the time of his 
eavesdropping the prophesy, he crossed a line that I can't abide.

The third Snape, the one we got through most of the books, is the one 
I've dubbed QED Snape. That's Quintuple-Ess (Spying, Snarky, Snide, 
Sarcastic, Sadistic) Demented Snape. Demented because he lost his 
soul when Lily died. Though he was a fully realized adult, he 
basically quit life and lived for his revenge on Voldemort as DD's 
puppet. That's something we only fully understood after DH. 

That QED Snape was stuck in the past was only too evident in the 
Shrieking Shack in PoA and at the kitchen table of 12 GP in OotP. 
Sirius has an excuse for his lack of maturity - 12 years in Azkaban. 
But what's Snape's excuse? None, other than that boyhood grudge that 
Lupin acused him of in the Shack. QED (quod erat demonstrandum), 
yeah, I planned the double entendre, Snape never got over his teen 
through true-DE years, his Snivellus years. And he became Snivellus 
of his own accord, he's got nobody to blame other than himself. Then, 
for me, he continued to demonstrate those teenage qualities when he 
long since should have become an adult about things.



> Potioncat: 
> So, yes, I liked Snape. Now, that didn't surprise anyone, did it? 
> Being fully in the fictional Potterverse, and meeting Snape in the
> way we all did, I liked him; not at first. Not till I realized he
> was up to something. I started to see that in most cases, when he
> was being snarky, he was also doing something else. 
>     At that point, I started enjoying his sarcastic humor, even
> as I winced at his treatment of the students. 

Mike:
Can I admit I laughed at his snarky humor all the while forming a 
distinct distaste for the character? I too was good with the snark as 
a teen. But I learned that it doesn't go over well when you become an 
adult. So I can laugh at the character Snape's snarky quips knowing 
that if I had met him face to face I would have a distinct distaste 
for his type of truncated-maturation personality.


> Potioncat:
> I think it would depend on when I met him. 
> <snip>
> 
> If I had met him as an 11-year-old, I would have become his
> friend, or had I met him after LV's fall--and found later he had
> been a DE, I would be his friend.

Mike:
Like I said, I might have liked him okay if I had met him when we 
were both 9-year-olds. But I would have soon grown tired of him and 
instead competed with him in the academic arena and no-doubt 
outshined him in the athletic arena.

But if I had met him after, and found out he *used* to be a DE,... NO 
WAY! From afar I would have said a silent congratulations for turning 
his life around, if I had known he had done that. But I have no use 
for people that have EVER been a part of a terrorist organization, 
repentance or not.



> Potioncat:
> I'm not sure what would have happened, if we had been friends and
> then I found out he had joined the DEs. And, I'm not sure if a
> friendship would have survived his use of Mudblood, but I don't
> think he arrived at Hogwarts using that word.
> 
> If we had been friends as youngsters I would die laughing at his 
> barbs, and sometimes rebuke him. 
 
> There was something intriguing in someone who could behave 
> so badly while doing the right thing.

Mike:
I agree that he learned Mudblood while in Slytherin.

I too would have enjoyed his youthful snark and probably joined him.

Intriguing, umm yeah, but not as in 'I'd like to be your friend' kind 
of intrigue. More like a 'That Snape, what an ass. Where does he get 
off?' kind of intrigue. Lots of head shaking whenever I was around 
him.


> Potioncat:
> <snip>  The scene that concerned me--as a Snape friend--happened
> later. Snape's conversation with Fudge bothered me a great deal.
> However, it makes more sense now. 

Mike:
All part of my reason to despise the Snape at the end of PoA, from 
the Shack onward to the end. When he bound and gagged Lupin, refusing 
to listen to the other side, that was it for me. Harry showed more 
maturity in that situation than Snape did.

Some people have pointed out that Snape conjured a stretcher for 
Sirius too. That he was saving him from the Dementors. That's not 
what all his ensuing conversations showed. The Dementors were gone 
when he conjured those stretchers, of course he wasn't going to leave 
Sirius out there where he might come to and make his escape. He 
brought him up to the castle with the others, saw him locked up with 
the intent of bringing a Dementor up to him to have his soul sucked. 
He even asked Fudge if it was going to happen right away. So why 
shouldn't I believe that was his intent in the Shack, to have Sirius 
soul sucked?

I repeat, I DON'T CARE if he thought Sirius was guilty and that Remus 
was helping him. He was aiding and abetting a miscarriage of justice 
that would result in a man becoming "worse than dead" based mostly on 
a boyhood grudge. That's the way I read it.


> Potioncat:
> <snip>
> 
> Several have posted that they would have wanted Severus as a 
> friend, but he might not choose them. I don't think so. Young 
> Severus was desperate for friends. I think he would have responded 
> to gestures of friendship, particularly where the interests were 
> similar.

Mike:
He's all yours, PC. :D


> Potioncat:
> <snip>
> So there is something positive to Snape, not seen on the page.

Mike:
Yep, as I'm convinced there is a lot of negative in his teen Hogwarts 
years not on the page. Though I agree with Catlady, it's possible to 
like both Severus and Sirius at the same time, I don't like Snape.

Mike, who wrote most of this post shortly after PC posted hers then 
forgot about it and let that darn RW get in the way ;-)




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 02:19:55 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:19:55 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
Message-ID: <g3uucb+gink@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183433

CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter 23,
Malfoy Manor

We start the chapter with the Trio outside their tent, surrounded by 
Snatchers. Hermione silently points her wand at Harry and casts a hex 
that makes his face swollen and painful. The enemies close in and 
seize our heroes, and their leader proves to be Fenrir Greyback. 
Despite Hermione's quick thinking, the identities of the Trio are 
suspected, since the Snatchers have a photo of Hermione, and Harry's 
scar is still visible, upon closer examination. The Snatchers also 
find the Sword of Gryffindor in a search of the tent.

Eager for the reward Voldemort has promised, Greyback takes his 
group, the Trio, the Sword, and his other prisoners (Dean Thomas and 
the goblin Griphook) to Malfoy Manor, which is being used as a base 
by Voldemort. There an initially skeptical Narcissa orders the 
prisoners brought into the drawing room for positive identification 
by Draco. Lucius is also present. Draco is not willing to identify 
Harry, but Fenrir points out Hermione, and Narcissa thinks she looks 
right. Draco halfheartedly agrees it might be she, and Lucius 
recognizes Ron. Bella walks in, and she too recognizes Hermione.

An argument ensues about who gets the honor of summoning Voldemort, 
Bella or Lucius. Lucius seems about to win by the expedient of 
preventing Bella by main force, when Bella freezes, having seen the 
sword. She screams that no one must call Voldemort, and demands the 
sword. The Snatchers, thinking she means to steal a valuable bit of 
booty, resist her, and she stuns three of them, before demanding 
Greyback explain where the sword came from. Upon learning he found it 
in the prisoners' tent, Bella examines the sword, growing even more 
frightened. She assures the Malfoys they are all in terrible danger 
if Voldemort comes. She convinces Narcissa to allow the rest to be 
taken away and secured "downstairs" except for Hermione, whom she 
wishes to question. 

Harry, Ron, and the others are left in a dark room, and Hermione's 
screaming is heard from above. Ron is beside himself over the danger 
to Hermione. Luna, it turns out, has been a captive in the same room 
for some time along with the wandmaker, Ollivander. As she works to 
untie them, Ron releases lights from his Deluminator. Harry, driven 
to desperation by Hermione's screams and the situation, searches for 
anything that might help them in his pouch, and sees, as once before 
at Privet Drive, Dumbledore's eye. He calls to it for help and tells 
it where he is, and the eye blinks and disappears from the mirror.

Overhead, Bella can be heard interrogating Hermione. Her questions 
center around what else may have been taken out of her Gringotts 
vault. Hermione insists they have never been in Bella's vault and 
just found the sword. When Bella persistently refuses to believe her, 
she comes up with the story that the sword is fake. Lucius sends 
Draco down to fetch Griphook, who as a goblin can verify whether the 
sword is goblin-made. Desperately, Harry begs Griphook to lie to 
Bella, and tell her the sword is a fake.

Draco comes and takes Griphook away, and as he shuts the door behind 
him, Dobby the House Elf appears in the room with a loud crack.  He 
announces he is there to rescue Harry. Harry orders Dobby to take 
Luna, Ollivander, and Dean to Shell Cottage, and Dobby Disapparates 
with them in tow, with another loud crack.

This time, the Death Eaters above hear the noise, and Narcissa 
suggests Peter be sent to investigate. Since hiding the fact that 
prisoners are missing is not an option, Harry and Ron jump on Peter. 
Peter begins to choke Harry with his silver hand in the struggle, and 
Harry reminds Peter he once saved Peter's life. Peter hesitates for a 
moment, but then redoubles his efforts to free himself from Harry and 
Ron.  His silver hand, Voldemort's gift, wraps itself around Peter's 
neck and strangles him.

Harry and Ron escape the dungeon just in time to hear Griphook tell 
Bella the sword is a fake. She touches her Dark Mark, and Harry's 
scar burns. He knows Voldemort is on his way.

Throughout this chapter, Harry has been fighting off powerful 
thoughts and emotions from Voldemort, who has flown to a tall black 
tower to speak to a skeletal old man in a cell-like room. In separate 
snippets, this man indicates he has expected the visit, he does not 
have what Voldemort seeks, he welcomes death, and finally, at the 
moment Voldemort is summoned, the man asserts Voldemort cannot win, 
and the wand will never be his. Angered by this defiance and the 
interruption, Voldemort kills the man and answers the summons, 
promising himself some retribution against his Death Eaters if the 
summons was in error.

Ron, using the wand he seized from Peter, disarms Bella, but Bella 
threatens to kill Hermione with a knife to her throat. The impasse is 
broken by the return of Dobby, who makes the chandelier fall down, 
causing Bella to release Hermione, and injuring Draco. Harry seizes 
the opportunity to grab the wands Draco is holding and Stuns Greyback 
with them, then works to get Griphook, who is clutching the Sword of 
Gryffindor, out from under the chandelier. Meanwhile Ron gets 
Hermione. Dobby disarms Narcissa, who tries to interfere. Then Harry 
grabs Dobby and Disapparates with him and Griphook.

Upon his arrival outside Shell Cottage, Harry discovers that Bella 
has thrown her knife at Dobby, and hit him squarely in the chest. He 
lays Dobby gently on the grass, and Dobby dies with Harry's name on 
his lips.

Discussion Questions:
1) What did you think of Harry's story, that he is a Slytherin 
named Vernon Dudley whose father works at the Ministry?

2) Greyback takes the party to Malfoy Manor rather than 
summoning Voldemort himself. Harry surmises this is because Greyback 
is not a marked Death Eater. What do you think? 

3) Narcissa Malfoy seems to have some authority: Greyback and 
his men defer to her, and she decides to let them in. What is her 
status, do you think? Which events of this chapter helped to form 
that opinion?

4) What did you think of Draco in the scene where he is asked to 
identify Harry?

5) Lucius, Bella, and Greyback all argue over who should get 
what credit for the capture. What does each hope to gain?

6) Did you learn anything knew about/form any new opinions of 
Bellatrix in this chapter?

7) What did you think prompted Bella's extreme fear when she 
believed the Sword of Gryffindor was stolen from her vault?

8) What did you think was the explanation for Dumbledore's eye 
in the broken mirror?

9) "May your loyalty never waver again", Voldemort said to Peter 
after giving him the silver hand in GoF. Now we know what he meant. 
What did you think of Peter's death? Did you like or dislike the way 
it ended his story? Do you see any special meaning in it?

10) Do you think, when Peter let Harry go, he experienced a 
sincere regret for his past actions? Why or why not?

11) Why do you think Griphook lied to Bella?

12) What did you think was going on with Voldemort in this 
chapter? What ideas did you have concerning the identity of the old 
man in the tower?

13) Can someone explain to me why Dobby's death is the one death 
in this book that originally did, and still does, move me to tears, 
even though I always found him annoying? 

--Zara

NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see
"HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database





From tkjones9 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 02:52:23 2008
From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:52:23 -0000
Subject: HBP question
Message-ID: <g3v097+eke4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183434

OK, so this might not be the right page to post this but I was looking
at the site page for the movie on yahoo movies and on IMDB I didn't
see actors/characters listed for Bill or Fluer. How can they possibly
be leaving that part out? Just wondering if anyone knew about that?

Tandra




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 03:16:44 2008
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:16:44 -0000
Subject: HBP question
In-Reply-To: <g3v097+eke4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3v1ms+oqbc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183435

> Tandra:
> OK, so this might not be the right page to post this 

Goddlefrood:

You're right, it's a question about a media that shall never be named, 
except at certain other of the HPfGU lists.

Tandra:
Bill or Fleur. How can they possibly be leaving that part out?

Goddlefrood:

How could they leave it in? would be more like it ;-)




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 04:04:14 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:04:14 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g3tl3k+drj2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3v4fu+4c52@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183436

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie"
<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:

> Ron mentioning, in an offhand way, that Harry's cloak is 
> "in good shape" is that. If nothing had come of it it 
> would have been exactly what it sounded like--Ron, having 
> seen cloaks before, comments that Harry's is in good shape. 


Please, guys, if anyone remembers where exactly Ron said this, could
you let me know? Someone wrote that it's in PS/SS, but I can't find it
in there. Is it in some other book? I mean all the books except for
DH, I know the DH stuff - about Harry's Cloak being perfect etc. But I
can't remember where else Ron said something about the Cloak being "in
good shape", and this just drives me crazy ;-(. Please help (off-list
welcome)!


zanooda, who just really *needs* to know where the quote came from ...




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 04:33:04 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:33:04 -0000
Subject: Question #4--Why so long for the last Horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <g3tr4g+l01b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3v660+8dg3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183437

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kennyg1864" <kennyg1864 at ...> wrote:

> side question about the locket:  Does the basin on the island in the
> cave automatically refill, once correctly emptied by drinking?  
> i.e., after RAB stole the real one, how did the fake one get 
> covered by potion, to be retrieved years later by Harry and DD?  
> Or did RAB re-do the potion curse, so that LV wouldn't suspect 
> anything?


It was always my belief that the basin was self-refilling, because,
when LV came back to the cave to check on the locket in DH, the basin
was filled with potion again, although neither DD nor Harry refilled
it before leaving the cave in HBP. "... he looked down upon a basin
whose potion had turned clear, and saw that no golden locket lay safe
beneath the surface -" (DH, p.595 Am.ed.). LV didn't see an empty
basin, he saw a basin full of potion, he just turned it clear to be
able to see through. 

I know that Kreacher told Harry that LV himself filled the basin with
more potion after Kreacher drank it ("Kreacher's Tale"), but I  think
that either the elf misinterpreted what he saw, or maybe this can work
both ways - the basin can be refilled using a spell, but, if the spell
is not cast, after a few minutes it just refills itself. BTW, I don't
believe that Regulus was in a condition to cast refilling spells after
drinking the potion ;-(.


zanooda, who can answer only Kenny's side question, unfortunately ...





From sweenlit at gmail.com  Thu Jun 26 04:47:33 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:47:33 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3unj9+l78u@eGroups.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806251624u3b4639actd867c16823c6e25d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g3unj9+l78u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806252147xedf4fbv789eb76109153791@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183438

Julie:
It's clear, but it's not at all what JKR wrote. There are
three Unforgivables, capitalized, named and defined. Dark
Magic is distinct and identifiable, as Lily tells us in one of
Snape's Pensieve scenes in DH

Lynda:
Then why are there a number of wizards who are not dark wizards who cast the
Unforgivable Curses in the defense of their own lives or the lives of
others. I'm not referring to Harry using imperio here, but to the wizards
and witches in the Battle of Hogwarts who used the UC's in defense of
themselves and others. Rowling does not impugn them for using them in that
manner. That is where I got the idea, not out of thin air.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 04:52:51 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:52:51 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)-Lee Jordan question
In-Reply-To: <g3u6i9+jm8k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3v7b3+46s3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183439

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> In fact, all the Muggles that we encounter are white, just like 
> most of the Wizards (Angelina, Dean, Lee, Kingsley, Cho, and the 
> Patil twins being notable exceptions) and all the main characters. 


There is also Blaise Zabini and his beautiful mother :-). But I wanted
to ask this for ages: was it ever confirmed that Lee Jordan was black?
It doesn't say in the book that he is black, right? Just that he has
dreadlocks. This may be a hint, but maybe not - I've seen white people
with dreadlocks. Did JKR ever said anything about this?


zanooda, who likes Lee Jordan, and who was hoping for a "Potterwatch"
broadcast directly from Hogwarts right after the victory ...




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 05:39:34 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:39:34 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3unj9+l78u@eGroups.com>
References: <g3unj9+l78u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <48632B96.3040603@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183440

Lynda:
Here's where I need to clarify my idea. I think that the goodness or
evilness in a spell is in the intent of the spellcaster. A spell
cast with the intent to cause harm to another has the potential
of being a dark spell.

CJ:
Perhaps one might draw a parallel with traditional moral philosophy. In 
the Middle Ages, it was widely held that three criteria had to be met 
for an act to be considered gravely evil: grave matter, full knowledge 
and full consent. The second two first.

Full knowledge meant the actor had to be fully aware of and fully intend 
the evil. When Harry cast Sectumsempra, even though he freely chose to 
cast it (full consent; see below) he was unaware of what the spell did. 
We might argue that Harry had a moral responsibility to inform himself 
before casting unknown spells around, but we don't hold him guilty to 
the same degree as someone who fully understood the nature of the spell.

Full consent means I must fully and freely choose to commit the act. If 
Harry, even fully aware of the nature and result of the Sectumsempra, 
casts it because a DE is threatening to AK Hermione, then he is not a 
free moral agent. He is being compelled. In this case we may choose to 
partially or even fully exonerate him. But if, being fully aware of the 
nature of Sectumsempra, Harry freely chooses to use it without external 
compulsion, then he is acting freely and is fully responsible for the 
moral evil he causes.

Grave matter means the act itself must be intrinsically evil. I might be 
fully and unwaveringly convinced that Expelliarmus is the most evil 
spell ever invented, and on the basis of that belief run around 
Expelliarmusing every wizard I run across, but my belief and intent 
alone won't earn me a life sentence in Azkhaban. Though perhaps Mundugo's.

Lynda:
A spell cast with the intent to defend oneself or another has the
potential of not being dark magic. Intention is the key.

CJ:
Intent is one criterion, but it's not a get out of jail free card. 
Self-defense might be sufficient to exonerate me for Cruciating a DE who 
was about to AK me. But I doubt it would it exonerate me from AKing a 
classmate, no matter how hard the kid had threatened to punch me.

It's crucial to note, however, that my intent does *not* change the 
moral nature of the act. Dark Magic remains Dark. The Cruciatus remains 
intrinsically morally evil. The most my intent can do is exonerate me 
(partially or fully) from the guilt of the act.

Lynda:
Not every spell cast by every dark wizard will be dark magic.

CJ:
This would be the grave matter criterion. Expelliarmus won't get you 
convicted of murder no matter how convinced you personally are that it's 
a killing spell.

Lynda:
As you say, a wizard using expelliarmus to rob a bank commits
an evil act.

CJ:
We need to disambiguate here. A wizard who uses Expelliarmus to rob a 
bank gets convicted of robbing the bank, not of using Expelliarmus. An 
wizard using AK to rob a bank would be convicted of *both* robbery *and* 
murder.

Lynda:
A wizard, however, who uses imperio to make someone put down a
handgun and keeps that person from killing someone else
commits an act of good intent.

CJ:
Perhaps, but it's not a given. A jury would still need to deliberate and 
decide whether the intent was sufficient to offset the intrinsic evil of 
the act. It may or may not be.





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 05:55:32 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:55:32 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806251624u3b4639actd867c16823c6e25d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g3vb0l+hs9r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183441

> Montavilla47:
> I figured out that Snape was the awful boy fairly early. Around HBP, anyway,
> 
> when I really put effort into figuring things out at all.
> 
> Lynda:
> I figured it out earlier than that. Around GOF, think. Since I read a lot
> and my entire family is into the HP books, print versions, audio versions
> and especially since our selection of audios is limited to three of the HP
> books and a couple by other writers, the books get a lot of play. My
> selection of print books is far larger. I just packed up over a hundred for
> a yard sale in a couple of weeks.

Montavilla47:
Good for you for getting it early on.  Once you let yourself make that 
leap from James to Snape, it seems pretty sure that it's going to
turn out to be him.  But, I must say, it did take me a long, long time
to figure out from there that Snape and Lily might actually like 
each other.  (Because of the James/"awful boy" connection, the image 
of the "boy" was older in my head.  I thought I was being quite
audacious in my story when Snape is only thirteen.  And it was very
fun coming up with a reason for Snape to be meeting Petunia at
that time.) 

> Montavilla47:
> Well, I'm aware that teens can be angsty, but that doesn't mean I want to
> listen to them angst. And it's not like Dumbledore's actions of a hundred
> years ago have anything to do with Harry.
> 
> Lynda:
> No, but I know more than a few teens who would have a similar reaction. And
> I'm used to adults not liking to deal with teenage angst. I'm in a fortunate
> spot. No teens in the home (ever--I don't have kids) but I work with special
> needs kids, and if you want angsty. . .so I do deal with it, but I get to
> leave it at work.

Montavilla47:
I'll yield to you on the angsty teen thing.  You'd think I'd remember my own
angstiness from my teen years.  But, as I recall, I was a perfect ray of 
sunshine. :)
 
> Montavilla47:
> Well, the only time I can think of that they were *that* silly was in OotP,
> when they decide to hurry off to rescue Sirius, when--as soon as
> Umbridge was out of the picture--they were free to use her fireplace
> to contact Arthur and Molly--or even floo directly to 12 Grimauld Place,
> if they were determined to go to the Ministry.
> 
> Lynda:
> I don't think what they did was silly. Yes, they could have used the
> fireplaces to contact others. In DH, that is. But the were rightly worried
> about the safety of their family and friends, who were being watched they
> knew, by the Deatheaters.

Montavilla47:
Let me clarify.  I meant that they were silly in OotP to spend several
hours riding the thestrals to London, when they could have told the
thestrals to take them back to the castle (which might have taken 
five minutes at the most).  Ron and company had already routed
the Inquisators, so there was no reason they couldn't simply use
Umbridge's fireplace to either contact Arthur and Molly (as they 
members of the Order and the kids knew their address) or, floo
directly to 12 Grimauld Place and be in London within ten minutes.

In DH, the silliness was partly not consulting the adults (like Bill,
the CURSEBREAKER), and not stocking the tent with some food.  
The not-consulting I can forgive quicker than the food.  
 
> Montavilla47: (regarding Draco)
> But I'm not even talking about a big change. I'm talking about getting off
> the fence. Otherwise, what's the point of setting him up with a choice to
> begin with?
> 
> Lynda:
> But, that decision, to get off the fence could have led to a big change. I'm
> agreeing with you here. I would have liked to have seen that, even hoped for
> it, but I did not really expect it.

Montavilla47:
I'm glad we agree. :)

> Montavilla47:
> Do you really believe that? That a disarming spell becomes Dark because
> it's used by a Dark Wizard?
> 
> Lynda:
> Here's where I need to clarify my idea. I think that the goodness or
> evilness in a spell is in the intent of the spellcaster. 

Montavilla47:
Thank you.  I seriously stared at the screen for about half an hour,
saying to myself, "She *can't* really think that, can she?"

> Montavilla47:
> I disagree. By holding that moment back until the very end, that
> subplot took on more weight than it should have. Percy really had
> nothing to apologize to his brothers for--the argument wasn't with
> them but with his father. They were only involved because they
> insisted on taking sides.
> 
> Lynda:
> They hadn't gotten along with Percy for years before he left the family. I
> don't think their pretty constant references to him in a derogatory fashion
> throughout the earlier books was simple sibling rivalry. Never did, really
> (I did not like Percy from SS--thought he was--well a git) so I tend to
> think that his return to the family fold was at just the right time and the
> right place as well. There was time to apologize to his dad, but not the
> twins. Not then.

Montavilla47:
I think this is something we'll just need to disagree about.  I just don't see
that Percy needed to apologize to the twins at all.  

> Montavilla47:
> If you mean Harry wouldn't have survived the AK in the woods, then
> you're wrong about that being due to the Power of Love. That was due
> to the Power of Blood. It was Harry's blood in Voldemort's veins that
> kept him alive.
> 
> If it was the original AK in Godric's Hollow, then it that was ultimately
> due to Snape's love for Lily--and Lily's blood. While it was love for
> Harry that caused Lily to stand in front of him, it wasn't her love that
> saved him. It was the choice she had, because of Snape's love for her,
> that made the difference. (As we see when the Bulgarian Mother is
> killed protecting her children.)
> So, yes, it was the Power of Love at work there. But it was a Power
> of Love only indirectly connected to Harry himself.
> 
> Lynda: I'm going to disagree with you here. The Power of Blood was
> important, but the Power of Love even moreso. It's the key to the books.

Montavilla47:
According to Dumbledore, Harry survived that AK (or was in a position
to survive it, since he also had the choice to die) because Voldemort
used Harry's blood in the ritual to restore his body, thus extending
Lily's blood protection to Voldemort.  That's blood, not love.

I suppose Harry's decision to live again was from his love of his 
friends, who were still fighting.  In which case, I think you can
make a case for the Power of Love extending to others, since
Voldemort isn't able to hurt people quite as badly as he did before.

> Montavilla47:
> They didn't really have a turnaround. When Narcissa "helps" Harry, she's
> not doing it to help him. She's simply lying so that she can get into the
> castle.
> 
> Lynda:
> She's doing it to make sure Draco is safe, which is another notch on the
> belt for the Power of Love. Selfish love, maybe, but she's doing it out of
> love.

Montavilla47:
You know, that's another of those things I don't really understand--like
when spells are dark and when they aren't.  Why is Narcissa's love 
qualified by being "selfish"?  

Narcissa is willing to suck up to Snape and she's willing to lie to 
protect her son.  Molly is willing to KILL to protect her daughter. Why
is there this implication that Molly's love is pure and good,
while Narcissa's is somehow tainted?






From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 08:08:34 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:08:34 +0800
Subject: Fidelius Confundus
In-Reply-To: <g3u0hi+3eft@eGroups.com>
References: <g3u0hi+3eft@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <48634E82.2000901@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183442

kennyg1864:
IIRC the prevailing guesswork is that DD knew of the breaking of the
Fidelius Charm as soon as LV broke it (thanks to Wormtail's betrayal),
since he had cast the Charm.

Ceridwen:
DD couldn't have cast the charm or he would have known that Peter was
the SK.

CJ:
Good point about DD.

However, based on what, other than LV's own use of the word in DH (which 
I take to be typical self-aggrandizement), do we assume LV "broke" the 
Charm? Surely Pettigrew's revelation to LV was entirely consistent with 
the normal duties and perogatives of a SK, and could not have broken it 
as such. Conversely, had LV the ability to break the Charm, he would not 
have needed Pettigrew to reveal the Secret.

bboyminn:
you are rationalizing; meaning creating a path of logic that fits the 
facts as you see them.

CJ:
Well, I am *attempting* to rationalize the facts as I see them. But you 
make that sound like a bad thing :-)

CJ (before):
.... But at this point the descriptions we're given of the
Fidelius Charm become very confusing.

"As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-Who
could search the village ... " (PoA chap. 10)

bboyminn:
This is not the absolute all-inclusive definitions of the Fidelius Charm.

CJ (now):
'Course not. If I thought it were, I wouldn't have bothered including 
other descriptions.

bboyminn:
Right, but how do you define 'directly'. Remember Dumbledore
conveyed the secret of Grimmauld Place to Harry via a NOTE.

CJ:
Well, in conjunction with the "refused to speak" bit in the PoA passage, 
I make -- for testing purposes only -- an assumption that at minimum a 
willful decision by the SK was required.

bboyminn:
You are assuming that all Fidelius Charms are constructed
the same...

CJ:
I am not, but thanks for your concern :-)

bboyminn:
In the case of the Potters, was the secret 'The Potters' or was the 
secret the location of the House in Godrics Hollow?

CJ:
A question I myself asked in my previous post, and a question to which, 
it appears to me, canon itself provides no clear answer. Flitwick's 
description suggests that at minimum, should LV choose to search GH, the 
Potters' sitting room window would be visible to him, though not the 
Potters inside. Conversely, LV takes the fact that he can see the house 
on that fateful night as evidence the Charm has been broken. But is that 
true, or simply a mistaken assumption?

JKR makes statements indicating that it was the Potters, not the house, 
whose location was Charmed. From her website 
(http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_poll.cfm):

"Even if one of the Potters had been captured ... they would not have 
been able to give away the whereabouts of the other two. The only people 
who ever knew their precise location..."

Her words here clearly indication it is the location of the Potters, not 
the house, which is Charmed. But perhaps we can just chalk that up to 
imprecision.

bboyminn:
However, you are right about one point, it would be possible for 
individuals in their own minds to realize that the house at Grimmauld 
Place belonged to Sirius Black's family and now belonged to Sirius 
Black. But while they could resolve this in their own minds, the 
Fidelius Charm would prevent them from saying it out loud, or by other 
means, to anyone else.

CJ (now):
Hmm, I deny I'm right about that point :-) because I don't think I was 
making the point so much as asking the question.

But as to the *question*: what if I one day decide to FC information 
which had hitherto been common knowledge -- say, the location of 
Buckingham Palace? Would every tourist who ever passed through the gates 
suddenly forget where it is? Would it suddenly disappear from every map 
of London ever produced? Would the Queen suddenly forget where she lives?

Alternatively, perhaps we get thousands of puzzled people meandering 
around central London trying to figure out where Buck's House had got 
to. In that case, two possibilities -- either they're still free to 
mention things like Buckingham Palace Road, or they're reduced to 
incomprehensible mumbles every time they trying to explain to the 
nearest bobby what they're looking for.

Since the Potters were holed up in their own home, were all the old 
friends who used to visit still free to drop by, or were they suddenly, 
inexplicably unable to remember where their friends live?

CJ (now):
(or wait! is she? according to Mr. Weasley in DH, after
the death of the SK, everyone to whom he revealed the Secret
became a SK in turn; but that differs from what JKR herself
had said)

bboyminn:
you are assuming that JKR made absolute complete all-inclusive 
statements. She is personally honor bound to tell the truth, but she is 
not bound to tell the WHOLE truth.

CJ:
No, I'm not. JKR's statement is not just incomplete, it's contradictory. 
 From her website again:

"When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with them, or, to put it 
another way, the status of their secret will remain as it was at the 
moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided will continue to 
know the hidden information, but nobody else."

This clearly implies that the people in whom the (now-defunct) SK 
confided remain unable to confide their knowledge to others. I.e., they 
do not become SKs in turn. If they did, the Secret neither would have 
died with the original SK, nor would the status of the Secret remain as 
it was at the time of the original SK's demise, as the new SKs would be 
able to pass it on.

Yet that contradicts canonical statements such as the PoA description 
or Moody's statement that all who knew the location of Grimauld Place 
became SKs in turn when DD died.

bboyminn:
Bill goes to warn the others... It is while he is gone that the Fidelius 
spells are cast.

CJ:
Since Bill was SK for Shell Cottage, the Charm could not have been cast 
while he was away.

bboyminn:
Well, you first flaw is in assuming the Fidelius was still in
place even in the face of evidence that it was not. Wormtail
revealing the secret is very very different that Wormtail
BETRAYING the secret.... It was the Betrayal of Fidelity that broke the 
Fidelius Charm.


CJ:
Now who's making uncanonical assumptions? :-) Chapter and verse please. 
 From everything I've been told of the Fidelius Charm, there is nothing 
to indicate either that a SK is not free to reveal the Secret to 
whomever he chooses or that a betrayal breaks the Charm.




But I've another question. Is there anything in canon or interview that 
specifically says the object of a Fidelius Charm can't be his or her own 
Secret Keeper? I mean, what better way to prevent access to someplace 
than to lock the key inside? Why not simply make James and Lily their 
own (or mutual) SKs? It would become impossible for LV to discover their 
location because the SKs were protected by the very Charm for which they 
were the Keepers of the Secret.

CJ




From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 07:48:14 2008
From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Happy Smiley)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: My nomination for Saddest DH Scene Upon the Second Reading
In-Reply-To: <g3r77v+3ndu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <342102.49716.qm@web46216.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183443

<kennyg1864@ ...> wrote:

> Clearly there were sad scenes when we first read DH--Hedwig, Snape,
> Fred, Lupin and Tonks, Colin Creevey.


Well, yes - they were sad scenes indeed (Snape's death was even more painful after visiting his memories).
?
*My* nomination for *saddest death scene* would be that of Dobby as that was the one that moved me to tears. I was surprised by my?reaction as I realized how much I had been unconsciously appreciating Dobby as a character. I also think the way he died, what he died for, the words he said at that point, etc. contributed to the pain and grief. The last time I had shed tears while reading the series was?for Harry when he underwent the excruciating trauma of accepting Sirius' death - man, what a pain! May be this is why, if I'm given a boon to bring back just one of them in the list, I think I'd go for Fred as I feel it would really mean a lot to Molly, George, Arthur and all other Weasleys, as I find it really horrible to imagine their grief and as I don't want *our good old Weasleys also* to see Thestrals. :(
?
Interestingly, Lupin has always?been one of the toppers in?my list of favorites and yet I was not?tearful when I read that he died (I did feel heavy in the heart, I admit)! I?did feel better when I read the Epilogue -?Teddy has the best godfather, hasn't he? Good choice by Lupin and Tonks! :)
?
~Joey, who always prefers to sign off with a happy smiley



From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Jun 26 11:59:12 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:59:12 -0000
Subject: Are we being too critical? (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue))
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806251139q96c1e2aud0d20c1bdaf70b03@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g400ag+alrh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183444

Lynda: 
> I'm not against all negative comments on the series. What I am 
against is
> some of the nearly exclusive negativity that I am seeing on the list. 
I am
> hoping that turns around to a more balanced discussion soon.

Potioncat:
Oh, but it's calmed down so much from the beginning of the DH 
discussion! Back then emotions were so raw that hardly anything could 
be brought up that didn't create hurt feelings, fist-a-cuffs or name 
calling. Unfortunately, many of the most disatisfied members have moved 
on. 

I don't see the exclusive negativity that you mention, but that may 
just be our own differing perceptions. 




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jun 26 14:33:46 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:33:46 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3ubh3+d6vp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g409ca+gq9q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183445


> Betsy Hp:
> But these are exotic 10th century Britons.  They're founding a school 
> their world had never seen the like of.  And the idea of educating 
> young muggleborns beside their wizardborn counterparts *must* have 
> come under discussion since Salazar made a point of saying "*no* 
> muggleborns in my house, thank you."  (For example, I doubt signs 
> saying "Irish need not apply" didn't pop up in the States until the 
> Irish did. *g*)

Pippin:
If anybody founded a country today mirroring the laws and practices of
the US circa 1789, we'd see  it a reactionary pariah state and call
for sanctions. But the US was considered incredibly progressive for
its time. Or look at the way the Hebrew bible treats slavery. It was
progressive for that time just to allow that slaves had certain
rights. Cultural norms change, and a subculture that doesn't change
with them can go from progressive to reactionary without altering its
philosophies at all. The WW has cut itself off from Muggledom, and in
the process it's fallen behind the times. 
 

Salazar was initially  willing to cooperate in educating Muggleborns
alongside wizards. We don't know why. Perhaps he was genuinely open to
the idea that Muggleborns could be trained up as the equals of
pureblood wizards, but didn't want to risk too much in case he was
wrong. Perhaps he presumed the experiment would fail and the others
would be convinced of his position. Worst case, he intended to
sabotage it from the beginning. That's obviously the fear that haunts
Hogwarts to this day.

 But I'd bet in the beginning the other Founders were overjoyed to
find a Blood-ist who was willing to teach Muggleborns magic and only
insisted on a segregated dorm. 


Present day Hogwarts is still progressive for its world, where
Muggleborns are  not admitted to Durmstrang at all. But there are
obviously much more serious abuses of Being rights
*cough*House-elves*cough* at present day Hogwarts than discrimination
against Muggleborns or prejudice against Slytherins, and  much more
serious insitutionalized abuse against Beings in the WW as a whole
than there is at Hogwarts. 

There's an excluded middle in concluding that if people aren't working
against something they're fine with it. I don't think the Trio are
oblivious to the bad things about the Hogwarts system, (well, Ron was,
but he learned better.) But I think they've learned they have to
choose their battles. 

Pippin





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Thu Jun 26 15:44:43 2008
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:44:43 -0000
Subject: Fidelius Confundus
In-Reply-To: <48634E82.2000901@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g40dhc+2no6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183446

> CJ:
> Good point about DD.
> 
> However, based on what, other than LV's own use of the word in DH 
> (which I take to be typical self-aggrandizement), do we assume
> LV "broke" the Charm? Surely Pettigrew's revelation to LV was 
> entirely consistent with the normal duties and perogatives of a SK,
> and could not have broken it as such. Conversely, had LV the 
> ability to break the Charm, he would not have needed Pettigrew to
> reveal the Secret.

Jen: I don't think LV could break the Charm in some way or he would 
have done so long before as you say.  I still believe that sentence 
was meant to be taken literally, that the Fidelius was broken when 
Peter told the location of the Potters to the enemy they were hiding 
from.  It's as much the fact that JKR used the term Fidelius Charm as 
it is the use of the word 'broken', when she could've easily said 
LV finally possessed the secret location.  That would have been more 
consistent with information already in the story.

JKR seeems more interested in metaphor & symbolism in her magic than 
internal consistency though: "Magic at its deepest and most 
impenetrable" and all that.  There's a dramatic impact to the full 
revelation of what Peter did by revealing the secret & breaking the 
bond of trust that the Potters had made with him.  He didn't just 
pass the secret on to another person as he might do with a friend as 
well, he actually shattered the magical bond with the Potters when he 
betrayed the secret to their would-be murderer.  No, I don't have a 
chapter & verse, just a guess given the way I see JKR's writing 
style.  

Sure, it could definitely be LV's arrogance to choose that wording.  
He'd think the Charm was broken simply because he considered the 
Fidelius useless once he possessed the secret. 

Either way, I'd speculate Lily was the spellcaster -using her wand 
that was so useful for Charms, which didn't come into play otherwise- 
so the bodies would be visible to other magical people in the 
village when she died.  That continues to sound like the most logical 
way that word got out imo, including to Dumbledore, who would have 
been smart to have one of his 'useful spies' in the area since he was 
suspicious of the Potter's friends.




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 15:46:56 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:46:56 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3ubh3+d6vp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g40dlg+hgdf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183447

---  "horridporrid03" <horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:

bboyminn:

Not quite sure where to step in here. So, to the general subject,
let me remind you that we can't say 'all Slytherins are bad'
because we haven't met 'all Slytherins'. 

Even at the school, Harry primarily interacts with a select 
group of Slytherins. There are several Slytherins in his year, 
even in his class, whose names he doesn't know. Which tells me
that THOSE Slytherins minded their own business and didn't get
in Harry's face. It is Draco and his immediate circle that are
the main problem, but the rest of Slytherins, aside from 
laughing at a joke now and then, stay in the background and
mind their own business. 

That doesn't mean they don't have anti-muggle or hyper-pro-
pureblood feelings. It just means that for the most part they
keep their feelings to themselves. 

>
> > >>Zara:
> > When did the Founders claim not to be thrilled with the 
> > values Salazar Slytherin espoused at the time they all 
> > founded the school together? On the contrary, the fact that
> > they did found a school together, suggests to me that they 
> > all considered the others' values to be within acceptable 
> > bounds. ...
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> ... And I also agree that the Founders showed a certain 
> level of agreement to Salzar's beliefs. They may not have 
> been so... *passionate* about it,... as Pippin points out:
> 
> > >>Pippin: (quoted)
> > But segregation is what Salazar was all about.
> > <snip> Once they'd worked out the house compromise, there's
> > no canon that any of the Founders objected to Slytherin's 
> > desire to choose his own students as he saw fit. They 
> > enshrined his criteria forever in the Sorting Hat along with
> > their own, so why would they object after Salazar had 
> > departed? ...
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> ... So, ..., all of the Founders were anti-muggleborn to a 
> certain extent (otherwise they'd have not invited Salazar, 
> or un-invited him,...), just Salazar was more in-your-
> face about it.
> 
> So Slytherin became the *face* of Wizarding racism, but was 
> reflecting the actual thoughts of Hogwarts as a whole ....  
> Salazar *himself* became annoying; his values did not.
> 
> ...
> 

bboyminn:

Here is the general flaw, we are taking the words of modern
people to be the words of Salazar Slytherin. Not the first
time in history that this has happened.

We see nothing in the past to truly indicate that Slytherin
was a racist. What we do have from the only objective account
is an indication that Slytherin very justifiably did not trust
muggles. This was a time of great persecution of wizards by
muggles. So, the more muggles you bring into the mix, the 
greater the risk of discover.

Using broad and general wizard mythology, likely before Hogwarts
wizards were trained in apprenticeships by individual wizards. 
This was reasonably safe, as if one wizard school was destroyed
many others would remain. However, the four founders had a 
bold new idea; to make a central school for all wizards in
which they could be assured that all the young wizards would
get a thorough, complete, and uniform education.

However, while this increased the quality of education, it
also increase the risk. If this one central school was invaded,
then the entire young wizarding population was at risk. 
Slytherins fears were very justified. The more muggles involved
the greater the risk of the secret getting out. If the secret
got out, and the school was attacked by muggles, then you 
essentially risked the loss of the most talented adult wizards,
and the loss of an entire generation of young wizards. So
again, Slytherins fears were totally justified. 

The other founders likely did not regard the risk as great as
Salazar did. I assume they thought that young muggleborn wizards
would not betray the school because that would mean betraying
and risking their own families. 

Slytherin wasn't willing to take that risk; the other founders
were.

> ....
> 
> > >>Zara:
> > It is also my opinion, that the wizard in the alley in late        
> > twentieth century Britain is a lot less concerned about 
> > racism than you are, ...
>
> Betsy Hp:
> I totally agree.  I'm still a bit stunned that this generation
> of Wizards are so little concerned about racism; ...
> 
> Betsy Hp
>

bboyminn:

Though my knowledge of history isn't great, it seems very much 
that this was a point in history where there was a great social
divide. Essentially, society was divided into the Superior and
the Inferior. If you had power, wealth, land, and servants, then
no matter how morally bankrupt you were, you were consider a
social Superior. Everyone else was scum. In a society like this,
I don't see discrimination as an uncommon thing.

But, relative to Hogwarts and the Founders, remember that their
fears were not prejudice, but were very justified. 

One last thought on the founders. Likely the founders were not
only the most powerful wizards and witches of the age, but they
were also likely the wealthiest. They not only had the 
inclination and skill to form Hogwarts, but they had the 
financial means to do so. 

I have always speculated that the source of Hogwarts wealth
came from an endowment by the founders which was added to 
by subsequent Headmasters and wealthy alumni. It can't be 
cheap keeping a free school the size of Hogwarts operating.
So, I speculate that the original endowment has grown
substantially over the subsequent 1,000 years. 

I also suspect that the Board of Governor's job is to make
sure the endowment is not pilfered, pillaged, or squandered.
Though I'm sure in 1,000 years all those things and more
have happened to some degree. 

Standing firm.

Steve/bboyminn 




From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Thu Jun 26 16:25:24 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:25:24 -0500
Subject: Ron/cloak question
References: <1214467719.3139.28514.m54@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <007801c8d7a9$3c9a5010$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>

No: HPFGUIDX 183448


> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie"
> <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
>> Ron mentioning, in an offhand way, that Harry's cloak is
>> "in good shape" is that. If nothing had come of it it
>> would have been exactly what it sounded like--Ron, having
>> seen cloaks before, comments that Harry's is in good shape.
>
> Please, guys, if anyone remembers where exactly Ron said this, could
> you let me know? Someone wrote that it's in PS/SS, but I can't find 
> it
> in there. Is it in some other book? I mean all the books except for
> DH, I know the DH stuff - about Harry's Cloak being perfect etc. But 
> I
> can't remember where else Ron said something about the Cloak being 
> "in
> good shape", and this just drives me crazy ;-(. Please help 
> (off-list
> welcome)!
>
> zanooda, who just really *needs* to know where the quote came from 
> ...

I am pretty sure that the comment that Harry's cloak is "in good 
shape" was not made by Ron or anyone else, pre-DH.  Ron says " - 
they're really rare and really valuable."  That first Christmas the 
only thing that Harry gets that is commented on as "better" is his 
Weasley Sweater/Jumper about which Fred says:  "Harry's is better than 
ours, though".

Until DH I see no indication that Harry's cloak is any better than any 
other invisibility cloak.  Harry never sees glimpses of parts of the 
people who are watching him under cloaks, for example.  And while 
Arthur has the cloak fall off, disclosing parts of him in OoP, Harry 
also has his cloak not cover him entirely in HBP, when he is doing 
that very stupid act of hiding in Draco's compartment, and Draco sees 
his foot.  And it is said that Moody's magic eye can see through 
Harry's cloak, and implied that DD can detect Harry when he is under 
the cloak.

I know that lots of people in the past few days have been writing 
about this comment of Ron's, and I don't remember who said it first, 
but I am certain that it was never made, and certainly wasn't made on 
the first Christmas when Harry got the cloak.

Jerri 





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 17:44:13 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:44:13 -0000
Subject: Fidelius Confundus
In-Reply-To: <48634E82.2000901@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g40khd+enb3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183449

---  Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:
>
> kennyg1864:
> IIRC the prevailing guesswork is that DD knew of the breaking
> of the Fidelius Charm as soon as LV broke it (thanks to 
> Wormtail's betrayal), since he had cast the Charm.
> 
> Ceridwen:
> DD couldn't have cast the charm or he would have known that
> Peter was the SK.
> 
> CJ:
> Good point about DD.
> 
> However, based on what, other than LV's own use of the word 
> in DH ..., do we assume LV "broke" the Charm? Surely 
> Pettigrew's revelation to LV was entirely consistent with 
> the normal duties and perogatives of a SK, and could not 
> have broken it as such. Conversely, had LV the ability to 
> break the Charm, he would not have needed Pettigrew to reveal
> the Secret.
> 

bboyminn:

The Charm was broken, but I don't think Voldemort personally
broke it.

In becoming the Secret Keeper, Peter is metaphorically, or
possibly really, swearing Fidelity or Faithfulness to the
Secret and to the Subjects of the Secret. The Potters are 
specifically hiding from Voldemort, consequently, Peter 
telling Sirius is not a breach of Faith. However, very much so,
Peter telling Voldemort was a colossal breach of Faith and 
Fidelity. 

Since this is the Faithfulness or Fidelity Charm, a breach of
faithfulness or fidelity would logically ruin the charm. 

Certainly you must see the logic in that, even if you don't 
agree. 


> bboyminn:
> you are rationalizing; meaning creating a path of logic that
> fits the facts as you see them.
> 
> CJ:
> Well, I am *attempting* to rationalize the facts as I see 
> them. But you make that sound like a bad thing :-)
> 

bboyminn:

Actually, I meant to add a side note that, to an extent, we
are all rationalizing. But some are rationalizing with logical
consistency while other are rationalizing with emotional
consistency. The two not necessarily producing the same
result. 

> ...
>
> 
> bboyminn:
> In the case of the Potters, was the secret 'The Potters' or
> was the secret the location of the House in Godrics Hollow?
> 
> CJ:
> ...
> 
> JKR makes statements indicating that it was the Potters, not
> the house, whose location was Charmed. From her website 
> (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_poll.cfm):
> 
> "Even if one of the Potters had been captured ... they would
> not have been able to give away the whereabouts of the other 
> two. The only people who ever knew their precise location..."
> 
> Her words here clearly indication it is the location of the 
> Potters, not the house, which is Charmed. But perhaps we can
> just chalk that up to imprecision.
> 

bboyminn:

Well, not that's not a logical conclusion. What JKR is saying
is that if the Potter parents were captured, they would not
be able to utter the location of Harry. In otherwords, not
even the subjects of the Charm can speak the secret. Nor
can those to whom the secret was revealed speak the secret.
Only the Secret Keeper is capable of relaying that information
to anyone. 

As I see it, JKR is simply saying the NO ONE can speak or 
relay the secret except the Secret Keeper. I don't see her
making a statement about the nature of the Subject of the
Secret Keeper Charm; ie: the house or the people. 


> bboyminn:
> However, you are right about one point, it would be possible
> for individuals in their own minds to realize that the house
> at Grimmauld Place belonged to Sirius Black's family and now 
> belonged to Sirius Black. But while they could resolve this 
> in their own minds, the Fidelius Charm would prevent them 
> from saying it out loud, or by other means, to anyone else.
> 
> CJ (now):
> Hmm, I deny I'm right about that point :-) because I don't 
> think I was making the point so much as asking the question.
> 

bboyminn:

Whether stated or /asked/, you implied the possibility and
I agreed.

> CJ:
>
> But as to the *question*: what if I one day decide to FC 
> information which had hitherto been common knowledge -- say,
> the location of Buckingham Palace? Would every tourist who 
> ever passed through the gates suddenly forget where it is? 
> Would it suddenly disappear from every map of London ever 
> produced? Would the Queen suddenly forget where she lives?
> 

bboyminn:

Well, the first flaw is the no one would reasonably try to 
hide such a well known place as Buckinghan Palace. But it
still serves as a workable hypothetical.

Those who were aware of the existence of Buckingham Palace
would vaguely retain that knowledge, but would be unable
to communicate that knowledge to other people. 

As to Buckingham Palace and maps, that is a little more
difficult to explain away. Perhaps, the maps wouldn't change
but people's perception of them would. Perhaps, the physical
map would continue to show Buckingham Palace, but people
reading the map would not be able to perceive that aspect
of it.

As to the Palace itself, remember that the Palace is one 
small part of much larger parkland. To the far west, though
not really attached, is Hyde Park. To the immediate west and
attached is Buckingham Gardens. To the north and attached is
Green Park. To the east and somewhat attached is St. James
Park. Within these park spaces is a plot of ground immediately
surrounding the Palace which would certainly be considered
part of it. 

So, the building and immediate ground space could disappear
and there would still be a substantial body of land at that
place including Buckingham Gardens. This would still give 
a sense of 'place' to the place. One could assume that 
Buckinghan Palace Gardens are all that remain of the original
place. 

So, when people thought of Buckingham Palace, they would still
have a place they could go and identify with (the gardens)
even though the actual palace itself would be invisible, and
not just invisible but imperceptible. Just as you walk in 
a single physical step from the boundary of #11 Grimmauld
Place to the boundary of #13 Grimmauld Place with no 
perception of more than that one single step. So to you
would walk from the palace gardens to St. James Park in 
the few short steps it takes to cross the street with no
perception that the Palace exists in between. 

In other words, it's magic.

Now certainly there are certain unexplained aspects of it all.
For example, are people's eyes deceived when the look at a map?
Are people's minds clouded by the charm, not making it impossible
to remember Buckingham Palace, just making it more difficult 
and less likely that they will do so, and more forgetful when
they do?


> CJ:
> ...
> 
> Since the Potters were holed up in their own home, were all 
> the old friends who used to visit still free to drop by, or 
> were they suddenly, inexplicably unable to remember where 
> their friends live?
> 
> CJ (now):
> (or wait! is she? according to Mr. Weasley in DH, after
> the death of the SK, everyone to whom he revealed the Secret
> became a SK in turn; but that differs from what JKR herself
> had said)
> 
> bboyminn:
> you are assuming that JKR made absolute complete all-inclusive 
> statements. She is personally honor bound to tell the truth, 
> but she is not bound to tell the WHOLE truth.
> 
> CJ:
> No, I'm not. JKR's statement is not just incomplete, it's 
> contradictory. 
>  From her website again:
> 
> "When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with them, or, 
> to put it another way, the status of their secret will remain
> as it was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they 
> confided will continue to know the hidden information, but 
> nobody else."
> 
> This clearly implies that the people in whom the (now-defunct)
> SK confided remain unable to confide their knowledge to others. 

bbboyminn:

I don't think those two statement contradict each other. One
is an extension of the other. In the quoted statement, JKR
is making a qualified statements. It exists only under the
circumstances defined. AT THE MOMENT OF DEATH, what she says
is true. But after the death, there is more truth to be 
known, which at the moment, for plot reasons, she is not
telling us. 


> CJ:
> 
> Yet that contradicts canonical statements such as the PoA 
> description or Moody's statement that all who knew the 
> location of Grimauld Place became SKs in turn when DD died.
> 

bboyminn:

I say they don't contradict but merely expand on different 
aspects that come into play at different times.

> bboyminn:
> Bill goes to warn the others... It is while he is gone that
> the Fidelius spells are cast.
> 
> CJ:
> Since Bill was SK for Shell Cottage, the Charm could not have
> been cast while he was away.
> 

bboyminn:

What does Bill's location have to do with anything. Why can't
Mr. Weasley and Bill cast the Charms protecting the various
places at whatever location they happen to be at? 


> bboyminn:
> Well, you first flaw is in assuming the Fidelius was still in
> place even in the face of evidence that it was not. Wormtail
> revealing the secret is very very different that Wormtail
> BETRAYING the secret.... It was the Betrayal of Fidelity that
> broke the Fidelius Charm.
> 
> 
> CJ:
> Now who's making uncanonical assumptions? :-) Chapter and 
> verse please. From everything I've been told of the Fidelius
> Charm, there is nothing to indicate either that a SK is not 
> free to reveal the Secret to whomever he chooses or that a 
> betrayal breaks the Charm.
> 
> 

bboyminn:

Well, it's not clearly defined or stated, or we wouldn't be
discussing it, but I think it is sufficiently implied in the 
books.

First is the name of the Charm, it is the Fidelius, or Fidelity
or Faithfulness Charm. It's existence depends on the Fidelity
of the Secret Keeper. 

Next, as I've already said, the Potters are being specifically
protected against Voldemort. Sirius, Dumbledore, Hagrid, etc...
do not represent a threat to them. However, Voldemort does.
That makes revealing the Secret to Sirius very different than
revealing the Secret to Voldemort. Certainly, you can see that?

To reveal the Secret to Voldemort unquestionably brakes faith
with the 'oath' of Fidelity. 


> CJ: 
> 
> But I've another question. Is there anything in canon or 
> interview that specifically says the object of a Fidelius 
> Charm can't be his or her own Secret Keeper? I mean, what 
> better way to prevent access to someplace than to lock the 
> key inside? Why not simply make James and Lily their  own (or 
> mutual) SKs? It would become impossible for LV to discover 
> their location because the SKs were protected by the very 
> Charm for which they were the Keepers of the Secret.
> 
> CJ
>

bboyminn: 

Interesting concept, and a tricky one. From one perspective,
one would assume that the subject of the secret could not
also be the Secret Keeper. Though we have no proof. However,
if I remember right, Bill is the Secret Keeper for Shell
cottage. So, in that sense, is he part of the object as
well as the keeper of the secret? 

Again, we don't know the specific nature of the various
Secrets. In the case of the Potters, it might have been a
compound secret including the Potters and their location.
When Peter 'broke faith' he broke the faith of the entire
compound secret.

In the case of Shell Cottage and Grimmauld Place, because
there were so many people involved, it may not have been
possible to have a similar compound secret, and so it was
simply the building and associated grounds.

steve/bboyminn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 18:02:38 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:02:38 -0000
Subject: Fidelius Confundus
In-Reply-To: <g40dhc+2no6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g40lju+i0br@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183450

---  "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> wrote:
>
...
> 
> Jen: I don't think LV could break the Charm in some way or he
> would have done so long before as you say.  I still believe 
> that sentence was meant to be taken literally, that the 
> Fidelius was broken when Peter told the location of the 
> Potters to the enemy they were hiding from. ...
> 
> JKR seeems more interested in metaphor & symbolism in her magic
> than internal consistency though: ....  There's a dramatic 
> impact to the full revelation of what Peter did by revealing 
> the secret & breaking the bond of trust that the Potters had 
> made with him.  He didn't just pass the secret on to another 
> person as he might do with a friend as well, he actually 
> shattered the magical bond with the Potters when he betrayed 
>the secret to their would-be murderer.  ...

bboyminn:

Here is a slightly new take on based on something I posted in
a previous response to CJ. Maybe the Potter's Secret was a 
compound secret. For example, when Bill hid Shell Cottage, 
maybe he only included the House and Grounds. As in, 'I
swear I will not reveal the location of Shell Cottage to the
enemy'. Now, when the Potter were hidden, maybe it went more
like this, 'I will not reveal that the Potters are hiding at
their home in Godrics Hollow'. In this last case, both home
and the Potters are part of the secret.

Now consider this, and keeping in mind the compound secret
described above, maybe when Peter revealed the Secret to 
Voldemort the spell wasn't fully broken. But from Voldemort's
perspective, him being the person they were hiding from, the
spell was broken for him. They were hiding from him, now he
could find and see them, so, in a sense, the spell was 
specifically broken. 

Now when the Potters were killed, all aspects of the compound
secret had ceased to exist, and the spell was fully broken.
Though that doesn't explain Harry. Perhaps in constructing 
the spell someone so young as Harry didn't count, or perhaps,
some one so young has Harry wasn't included on the assumption
that if his parents were safe he would be safe. 

Still, Voldemort saying the spell was at that time broken
might have only been a qualified statement, as in, they are
hiding from me, and now I can find them. Since I (Voldemort)
can find them, the spell is no longer in operation with 
respect to me; no longer in operation (functionally) =
broken.

steve/bboyminn





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 18:03:32 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:03:32 -0000
Subject: Did the Deathly Hallows ruin DH? (Was:  Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <00a301c8d5b3$f254b8c0$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <g40llk+d19n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183451

CJ wrote:
> > I will admit to being incorrect about what "had to happen" in the
last book. But when the major plot line of HBP consists of Dumbledore
tracking down horcruxes, all but getting himself killed in the
process; when the destruction of the horcruxes is absolutely essential
to defeating Voldemort; and when DD specifically commits that task to
Harry before dying, I think I can be forgiven for thinking that's what
we were going to get in book seven. Instead, after spending an *entire
book* setting up the horcrux plot line, she shunts it aside for a new
plot line that ultimately goes nowhere. <snip>

Shelley responded:
> CJ, I'm in agreement with you there.  The DH are something new, like
she set up that pattern that she had to have a new mystery to solve
each book, and so she had to invent one for this last book, but I
seriously think that if she had just broke that model, and merely
dealt with resolving all the Horcruxes, that no one would have noticed
anything "missing" from the last book. Instead, we might have gotten a
full resolution on all the plot elements that we did love- like
finding out more about Snape so that his death didn't seem like such a
waste of print, or letting us know what else was going on in the
Wizarding world during those long camping sessions. I really thought
the last book would be about the Horcruxes, too, and it's almost like
they are resolved in afterthought or by mistake- a bit too 
disappointing compared to the story I hoped I would be getting.

Carol adds:

I don't think any reader could possibly get exactly what he or she
wants from the final book of any series. All of us had expectations
and hopes, and inevitably some of those expectations were unfulfilled
and some of those hopes dashed.

That aside, I, too, wish that she'd never brought in the Deathly
Hallows, but she needed the Hallows to give Dumbledore a reason for
putting on the ring and to sidetrack Voldemort from his confrontation
with Harry for the length of the book. She *may* have thought the
Hallows plot necessary for other reasons (guaranteeing Harry's
survival and giving Voldemort a reason, however feeble, for killing
Snape--the Elder Wand was working just fine, d**n it!). Certainly, it
enabled her to have the shades of Harry's loved ones walk with him to
what appeared to be certain death. Harry is also faced with the
crucial choice of Hallows or Horcruxes, and, of course, makes the
"right" choice, unfortunately dooming Snape in the process (though he
doesn't know it).

Whether those reasons, or others that I haven't thought of, justify
the DH plot in a book that we expected to be about the Horcrux search,
I don't know. I do think that the Horcrux search alone could not have
filled a whole book, and JKR would have had to deviate from her chosen
point of view more than she wanted to in order to provide additional
information. The isolation of the main characters, who for the first
time in the series are not at Hogwarts, also presents problems. It's
very difficult for the characters, and consequently for the readers,
to know what's happening to other characters outside the Trio. (The
overheard conversation of Ted Tonks, Dean Thomas, Griphook, Gornuk(?)
and the other Wizard whose name momentarily escapes me was an
ingenious device for allowing them to hear what was going on in the
world, especially at Hogwarts, and for JKR to drop hints entirely
missed by the characters that Snape was on the good side. Ron's
departure serves a similar function since he provides news of the
outside world when he returns. Other than that we have one wireless
broadcast and Phineas Nigellus's snidely biased reports and Harry's
scar link (the last wholly unhelpful with regard to events at Hogwarts).

IOW, Harry is not where he needs to be for readers (or HRH) to learn
what we wish to learn. True, JKR wants to keep Snape's motives secret
until almost the end of the book, but Harry at Hogwarts could have
found a way, under Headmaster Snape's very nose, to find the Ravenclaw
Horcrux. The locket could have been found over summer break and the
Godric's Hollow fiasco, if it needed to occur at all (the part about
LV finding the photograph of the merry-faced thief could have been
left out) could have occurred as it did over Christmas break and the
kidnapping by Snatchers (which resulted in the discovery of the cup
Horcrux's location) could have occurred as it did over Easter break.
That leaves Nagini, who could only be killed in the final battle
(having Harry kill her earlier would spoil the plot), which could
occur at the end of the school year, after HRH have finished school
and taken their exams.

It wouldn't be a great school year, but at least the reader would have
contact with the characters we care about. A way could have been found
to have Snape give Harry his message (a visit to the Pensieve,
escorted by a McGonagall who knows where Snape's loyalties lie)
without Snape's dying (though I must admit that last bit of magic
performed while Snape was bleeding to death was spectacular).

I disagree that Snape's death was "a waste of space"; Harry's
realization, too late, that Snape was on his side (and was a "lost
boy" like himself, similarly used by Dumbledore) is both ironic and
touching (though, of course, I'd rather that Snape hadn't died at all).

What I'm trying to say is that, if the book is fatally flawed, part of
the problem is that it takes place away from Hogwarts, isolating the
Trio from events at Hogwarts and in the WW at large, condemning Harry
to long periods of inactivity and brooding worthy of Hamlet, and
necessitating the introduction of some other plot element to fill up
space, keep LV out of Britain for the requisite time, and bring about
Snape's death, in however convoluted and unbelievable a fashion.

Carol, who found DH a wild ride that violently wrenched her emotions
all over the spectrum but unsatisfying intellectually because of
inconsistencies, improbabilities, and unanswered questions (then
again, I don't always like JKR's answers!)





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jun 26 18:16:53 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:16:53 -0000
Subject: Resolutions (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g3um1i+evpd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g40mel+tgu3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183452

> Julie:
> Again I agree with you, Magpie :-) I argued vehemently for
> a truly caring Dumbledore who gave out second chances primarily
> for the sake of the person desiring/needing that second chance,
> and who believed even the most damaged souls deserved to be 
> saved. The Tower scene in HBP sealed it for me. And then DH
> unsealed it, when we learned that saving Draco's soul is just
> part of a strategic plan. 
> 
> Yes, Dumbledore suggests Draco's soul isn't as tainted as
> Snape's, but it still read strongly to me that Dumbledore 
> isn't so much in the saving souls business as he is into 
> carrying out his grand plan to defeat Voldemort. And I can't
> say we weren't clued in, as Dumbledore had expressed little 
> interest in any of his students' souls before, never making
> an observable effort to prevent any student from joining 
> Voldemort's camp, not when Snape was a student, nor in 
> Harry's student days when Voldemort makes his triumphant
> return and everyone knows he is actively recruiting new
> DEs, particularly the already primed children of his current
> DEs (Slytherins, for the most part). 

Pippin:
If he didn't care about the students, why remain headmaster when
Voldemort was taking over? It would have been far easier to organize
resistance to Voldemort as Minister of Magic. 

You're also forgetting his speech in GoF, where he begs the school to
unite and tells them all, looking at the Slytherin Table, that they
will be welcome at Hogwarts at any time. 

Slytherins want to win, so the way to recruit them is to convince them
that Voldemort is going to lose, or that they will lose by joining
him. Dumbledore never misses an opportunity to emphasize that. He
wants them on his side, unlike McGonagall, who loses trust in Snape
once she learns that he was a Death Eater, and who who takes the first
opportunity to get rid of the Slytherins once she's in power. 

But DD's not about to indoctrinate people against their parents. And
he isn't about pity either. Dumbledore's own father was an outlaw and
so was his brother; he knows exactly what it's like to grow up being
treated like you come from a family of criminals. He doesn't pity the
Slytherin kids because he didn't like being pitied himself. Who would?

People keep thinking that "epitome of goodness" is synonymous with
sainthood, and it's obviously not. A saint is a living example of
holiness, as George jokingly reminds us in DH. That's as far beyond
ordinary goodness as Voldemort is  beyond ordinary evil. 
 
Dumbledore is the epitome of ordinary goodness; he expects to do well
by doing good. He grasps that there is something beyond that, but he
seldom gets there. There were always hints that he wasn't  as saintly
as people thought he was. But we're meant to understand, IMO, that he
used his last moments well. 

Yes, Dumbledore had a material as well as a moral reason for planning
to let Snape to kill him instead of Draco. But that plan was spoiled
when he lost the wand. At the moment  on the tower when
Dumbledore decides to talk Draco out of killing him, the plan looks
completely trashed.

DD hasn't been able to send for Snape. If he talks  Draco down but the
Death Eaters  reach the Tower, both he and Draco will probably be
killed. There's no chance of disabling the Elder Wand, no chance of
giving Harry vital information about the sword.  If by some miracle
Snape arrives, there'll be no concealing from the WW or Harry that
Snape is a "murderer", no way to follow through on the offer to give
Narcissa and Draco protection from Voldemort.  And it looks like DD's
about to die anyway. No wonder that  Snape  hesitates. They are way,
way  off plan.

But with all this going on, Dumbledore chooses to save Draco's soul,
the action with the most moral importance but the least obvious
benefit to the war. If it had turned out that saving Draco had some
major material benefit, we would think that Dumbledore could have
foreseen it, as he did with Pettigrew, and that would diminish the
moral impact of his choice.

It could have been powerful and dramatic for Draco to do something
positive to help Harry. But it would have been completely off message,
IMO, both in showing us through Dumbledore what moral behavior is
supposed to be, and in showing us through people's reactions to
Slytherin how morality can be subverted.

There are many characters in the book whose role is to show us how
unfair it is to expect less of people because of the group they belong
to. With the Slytherins,  JKR is more interested in the ways that
decent people can be persuaded to ignore that message. One of them is
to slant everything that they hear about a certain group towards
making them think that group is both scary and inferior. IMO,
Slytherin is her thought experiment for that. 

Pippin





From sweenlit at gmail.com  Thu Jun 26 18:19:20 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:19:20 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3vb0l+hs9r@eGroups.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806251624u3b4639actd867c16823c6e25d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g3vb0l+hs9r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806261119g7116753ao4de9f36a95c82403@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183453

CJ:
Perhaps one might draw a parallel with traditional moral philosophy. In
the Middle Ages, it was widely held that three criteria had to be met
for an act to be considered gravely evil: grave matter, full knowledge
and full consent. The second two first.

Full knowledge meant the actor had to be fully aware of and fully intend
the evil. When Harry cast Sectumsempra, even though he freely chose to
cast it (full consent; see below) he was unaware of what the spell did.
We might argue that Harry had a moral responsibility to inform himself
before casting unknown spells around, but we don't hold him guilty to
the same degree as someone who fully understood the nature of the spell.

Full consent means I must fully and freely choose to commit the act. If
Harry, even fully aware of the nature and result of the Sectumsempra,
casts it because a DE is threatening to AK Hermione, then he is not a
free moral agent. He is being compelled. In this case we may choose to
partially or even fully exonerate him. But if, being fully aware of the
nature of Sectumsempra, Harry freely chooses to use it without external
compulsion, then he is acting freely and is fully responsible for the
moral evil he causes.
Grave matter means the act itself must be intrinsically evil. I might be
fully and unwaveringly convinced that Expelliarmus is the most evil
spell ever invented, and on the basis of that belief run around
Expelliarmusing every wizard I run across, but my belief and intent
alone won't earn me a life sentence in Azkhaban.

Lynda:

I think the parallel is a good one and eloquently explained by you. And I
agree with your points.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From chelsealwferguson at yahoo.ca  Thu Jun 26 15:33:07 2008
From: chelsealwferguson at yahoo.ca (chelsealwferguson)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:33:07 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
In-Reply-To: <g3uucb+gink@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g40crj+gbhe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183454

> Discussion Questions:
>
> 2) Greyback takes the party to Malfoy Manor rather than
> summoning Voldemort himself. Harry surmises this is
> because Greyback is not a marked Death Eater. What do
> you think?

I think he's not entirely sure that he has Harry, and
wants some confirmation. He knows what the repercussions
are for summoning Voldemort hastily.

> 4) What did you think of Draco in the scene where he is
> asked to identify Harry?

I like this question. I think Draco is demonstrating a
serious moral struggle in this scene. He knows it is
Harry, he KNOWS, and we know he knows. But he also knows
now that Voldemort is brutal and evil and my guess is
that he doesn't want Voldemort summoned 1. because he is
terrified of him, 2. because if something happens (like
Harry escaping.. ha ha) and Draco is the one who confirmed
it was Harry and that's why Voldemort was summoned...
Draco knows he will be tortured or killed or both. 3. He
may feel sympathetic to Harry's plight now, and not want
him to be given to Voldemort.

> 5) Lucius, Bella, and Greyback all argue over who should
> get what credit for the capture. What does each hope to
> gain?

Lucius wants to be redeemed, Bella wants Voldemort's
approval, Greyback wants Hermione and money.

> 6) Did you learn anything knew about/form any new opinions
> of Bellatrix in this chapter?

I think she was given more information than we are aware of.
Probably more than any other death eater except Snape.

> 8) What did you think was the explanation for Dumbledore's
> eye in the broken mirror?

We know this already, it was Alberforth's eye, not Albus'.

Chelsea




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Thu Jun 26 18:42:55 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:42:55 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806261119g7116753ao4de9f36a95c82403@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806251624u3b4639actd867c16823c6e25d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g3vb0l+hs9r@eGroups.com>
	 <43e41d1e0806261119g7116753ao4de9f36a95c82403@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806261142h7c4df0fep1ced12e97b38ba1e@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183455

Lynda:
> I figured it out earlier than that. Around GOF, think. Since I read a lot
> and my entire family is into the HP books, print versions, audio versions
> and especially since our selection of audios is limited to three of the HP
> books and a couple by other writers, the books get a lot of play. My
> selection of print books is far larger. I just packed up over a hundred
for
> a yard sale in a couple of weeks.
Montavilla47:
Good for you for getting it early on. Once you let yourself make that
leap from James to Snape, it seems pretty sure that it's going to
turn out to be him. But, I must say, it did take me a long, long time
to figure out from there that Snape and Lily might actually like
each other.

Lynda:
My training tends to make me read carefully. And I read books I enjoy over
several times, which helps. Of the three books I'm reading now, two are
rereads, the other is a first time read, but as much as I'm enjoying it will
stay around from now on. It also cuts down on the cost of books--yes I know
about libraries--I'm boycotting the local one.

Montavilla47:
I'll yield to you on the angsty teen thing. You'd think I'd remember my own
angstiness from my teen years. But, as I recall, I was a perfect ray of
sunshine. :)

Lynda:
As was I! A perfect child. I didn't even have a curfew--because I knew if my
parents did not know who I was with and when I was coming home I would have
one--at six in the evening until I left home, no exceptions.
Montavilla47:
Let me clarify. I meant that they were silly in OotP to spend several
hours riding the thestrals to London, when they could have told the
thestrals to take them back to the castle (which might have taken
five minutes at the most). Ron and company had already routed
the Inquisators, so there was no reason they couldn't simply use
Umbridge's fireplace to either contact Arthur and Molly (as they
members of the Order and the kids knew their address) or, floo
directly to 12 Grimauld Place and be in London within ten minutes.

Lynda:
Got it. And in DH, the forgetting to pack food was quite a mistake.  Come to
think of it
I think every other magical bag I have read about or seen in movies has
access to food.
I may be misremembering, though.

> Montavilla47:
> Do you really believe that? That a disarming spell becomes Dark because
> it's used by a Dark Wizard?

>
> Lynda:
> Here's where I need to clarify my idea. I think that the goodness or
> evilness in a spell is in the intent of the spellcaster.

Montavilla47:
Thank you. I seriously stared at the screen for about half an hour,
saying to myself, "She *can't* really think that, can she?"

Lynda:
Nope. I'm neither that morrally bankrupt nor that mercenary.

> Lynda:
> They hadn't gotten along with Percy for years before he left the family. I
> don't think their pretty constant references to him in a derogatory
fashion
> throughout the earlier books was simple sibling rivalry. Never did, really
> (I did not like Percy from SS--thought he was--well a git) so I tend to
> think that his return to the family fold was at just the right time and
the
> right place as well. There was time to apologize to his dad, but not the
> twins. Not then.

Montavilla47:
I think this is something we'll just need to disagree about. I just don't
see
that Percy needed to apologize to the twins at all.
> Montavilla47:
> If you mean Harry wouldn't have survived the AK in the woods, then
> you're wrong about that being due to the Power of Love. That was due
> to the Power of Blood. It was Harry's blood in Voldemort's veins that
> kept him alive.

Lynda:
It was also recently pointed out to me that Percy and the twins were closer
together in age than Ron, Ginny  and Percy, or Bill and Percy and had at one
time probably been close because of  the nearness in age. I left Charlie out
because Charlie spends most of the books out of the country.
>
> So, yes, it was the Power of Love at work there. But it was a Power
> of Love only indirectly connected to Harry himself.
>
> Lynda: I'm going to disagree with you here. The Power of Blood was
> important, but the Power of Love even moreso. It's the key to the books.

Montavilla47:
I suppose Harry's decision to live again was from his love of his
friends, who were still fighting. In which case, I think you can
make a case for the Power of Love extending to others, since
Voldemort isn't able to hurt people quite as badly as he did before.

Lynda:
Yes, that's it I think. I think that the theme of the books is the Power of
Love
in all its various forms.

> Montavilla47:
> They didn't really have a turnaround. When Narcissa "helps" Harry, she's
> not doing it to help him. She's simply lying so that she can get into the
> castle.
>
> Lynda:
> She's doing it to make sure Draco is safe, which is another notch on the
> belt for the Power of Love. Selfish love, maybe, but she's doing it out of
> love.

Montavilla47:
You know, that's another of those things I don't really understand--like
when spells are dark and when they aren't. Why is Narcissa's love
qualified by being "selfish"?
Narcissa is willing to suck up to Snape and she's willing to lie to
protect her son. Molly is willing to KILL to protect her daughter. Why
is there this implication that Molly's love is pure and good,
while Narcissa's is somehow tainted?

Lynda:
That's why I put "maybe" in my answer. I'm not convinced it was a selfish
love. I think its the same love Molly has for her kids (or that any mother
does) but some might consider it to be selfish.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 18:53:27 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:53:27 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/ Draco
In-Reply-To: <g40mel+tgu3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g40oj7+kfn1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183456

 Pippin:
<SNIP>
But with all this going on, Dumbledore chooses to save Draco's soul,
the action with the most moral importance but the least obvious
benefit to the war. If it had turned out that saving Draco had some
major material benefit, we would think that Dumbledore could have
foreseen it, as he did with Pettigrew, and that would diminish the
moral impact of his choice. <SNIP>

Alla:

Right on this one I agree completely and it seems to me that 
expecting **anything** to come out of it is still not as powerful as 
saving Draco's soul simply because it exists.
I also want to reference Magpie's response here, without adding 
quote, could you please correct me if I am wrong but it seemed to me 
that for you in order for the message that Draco's soul is valuable 
simply because it exists to be powerful, you still needed 
**something** to come out of it, no?

I mean, you said that you did not expect Draco to be major hero or 
anything like that, but you still wanted to see that some benefit to 
good guys would happen in a form of Draco acting on it, having some 
sort of realization, giving Harry the wand, etc?

And I just do not get how this is showing that Draco's soul is 
valuable because it exists, it sounds more like tit for tat to me. Oh 
Dumbledore saved him and Draco in turn did something because he 
understood how Dumbledore was trying to do something for him.

I am honestly not sure how else JKR could show it better that Draco 
was saved **just because**. Nothing came out of it for the light, 
zero, but that IMO is the whole point.

Now nothing came out of it for **Draco's character**, sure  that I 
would agree with, although I personally would not be hundred percent 
sure of it either, with his hesitation of identifying the trio, etc. 
But the message that Pippin is talking about IMO was delivered the 
best way it could have been.

Oh, and as you know I cannot stand Draco, but I am saying all this 
in  extremely disinterested way, in a sense that after book 6 I was 
not invested anymore in wanting to see Draco's suffer. I mean I still 
could not stand him, but I got him being exactly where I wanted him 
to be in book 6, I got my carmic justice for all that arrogant crap 
that he dished in other books.

Therefore if JKR would have went full blown redemption with him, I am 
sure I could have been quite okay with it, but IMO she went exactly 
where Pippin is arguing.

JMO,

Alla





From sweenlit at gmail.com  Thu Jun 26 18:55:42 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:42 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Are we being too critical? (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue))
In-Reply-To: <g400ag+alrh@eGroups.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806251139q96c1e2aud0d20c1bdaf70b03@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g400ag+alrh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806261155o4dc80623gf3429c7df9e8d165@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183457

Potioncat:
I don't see the exclusive negativity that you mention, but that may
just be our own differing perceptions

Lynda:
It waxes and wanes like everything else. I've just been noticing a lot of
very critical posting recently, that seems to be focused on what people
wanted to see that did not happen or was left out. That's why so many of my
posts have focused on my theory that had she included more storylines and
plots it would have done nothing but lengthen the books and, due to the
author's style, made them more cumbersome or clunky and probably made them
less attractive to many people.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From rlaw186 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 16:17:13 2008
From: rlaw186 at yahoo.com (rlaw186)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:17:13 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
In-Reply-To: <g3uucb+gink@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g40fe9+q9b5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183458

Zara <zgirnius at ...> wrote:
>
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
> Chapter 23, Malfoy Manor
>
> Zara:
> 1) What did you think of Harry's story, that he is a
> Slytherin named Vernon Dudley whose father works at the
> Ministry?

Rlaw:
It was believable enough at first because of the fact that
Harry's was able to describe in accuracy what the Slytherin
common room looked like. Harry's story would've been more
believable if his scar wasn't visible at all, and if both
Ron and Hermione had altered their appearances.

> Zara:
> 2) Greyback takes the party to Malfoy Manor rather than
> summoning Voldemort himself. Harry surmises this is
> because Greyback is not a marked Death Eater. What do
> you think?

Rlaw:
I've no idea on whether he was a DE or not, though it has
never been stated. What we do know is Greyback is in charge
of the werewolf army.

> Zara:
> 3) Narcissa Malfoy seems to have some authority: Greyback
> and his men defer to her, and she decides to let them in.
> What is her status, do you think?

Rlaw:
I think it's more along the lines of Narcissa being the
matriarch of the Malfoy Manor and that she's a DE's wife.

> Zara:
> 4) What did you think of Draco in the scene where he is
> asked to identify Harry?

Rlaw:
Draco has resigned himself that he's pretty much a prisoner
in his own home. When asked to identify Harry, he gives a
half-hearted attempt because he knows Voldemort or `Aunt'
Bella would still kill him and his family once that get
what they want.

> Zara:
> 5) Lucius, Bella, and Greyback all argue over who should
> get what credit for the capture. What does each hope to
> gain?

Rlaw:
Lucius hopes to gain back his position by his Dark Lord's
side. Bella hopes to be the one the Dark Lord favors above
all of his other DE's and gain the position she feels she
so rightly deserves for serving 13 years of her life in
Azkaban because she pledged her allegiance to him. Greyback
hopes to gain a seat of power (so to speak) and go around
turning others into werewolves and raise his werewolf army
to hate all muggles and non-pure blood witches and wizard.

> Zara:
> 6) Did you learn anything knew about/form any new opinions
> of Bellatrix in this chapter?

Rlaw:
We learn that Bellatrix doesn't care who gets in her way,
even if it's family. She only cares about her position and
being the one whom Voldemort favors.

> Zara:
> 7) What did you think prompted Bella's extreme fear when
> she believed the Sword of Gryffindor was stolen from her
> vault?

Rlaw:
DD once said that the Dark Lord's wrath was terrible to
behold (forgot which book). Bella knows that Voldemort would
punish her maybe even kill her without a second thought and
without feeling any remorse.

> Zara:
> 8) What did you think was the explanation for Dumbledore's
> eye in the broken mirror?

Rlaw:
This was already explained by J.K.  Both Aberforth and
Dumbledore have the same brilliant blue eyes.

> Zara:
> 9) "May your loyalty never waver again", Voldemort said
> to Peter after giving him the silver hand in GoF. Now we
> know what he meant. What did you think of Peter's death?
> Did you like or dislike the way it ended his story? Do you
> see any special meaning in it?

Rlaw:
I think Peter had a somewhat fitting death for a rat. The
special meaning: never bite the hand that feeds you.

> Zara:
> 10) Do you think, when Peter let Harry go, he experienced
> a sincere regret for his past actions? Why or why not?

Rlaw:
He probably did. Harry could have let Remus and Sirius kill
Peter for betraying his parents to Voldemort. But just by
showing Peter that small act of kindness (something Peter
probably hadn't seen since his days at Hogwarts), Peter
remembered what Harry did for him.

> Zara:
> 11) Why do you think Griphook lied to Bella?

Rlaw:
Harry asked him to. Though if he didn't lie to Bella, who's
to say that his life would've been spared once Voldemort
returned?

> Zara:
> 12) What did you think was going on with Voldemort in this
> chapter? What ideas did you have concerning the identity
> of the old man in the tower?

Rlaw:
Voldemort was looking for the one who held the Elder wand.
Something that he felt he needed in order to defeat Harry.

> Zara:
> 13) Can someone explain to me why Dobby's death is the
> one death in this book that originally did, and still does,
> move me to tears, even though I always found him annoying?

Rlaw:
Dobby had his own bond with Harry. Harry saved him from a
life of servitude with the Malfoys and showed Dobby random
acts of kindness even though he was not Dobby's master.
Dobby didn't have to help Harry do anything since Harry
wasn't his master, but Dobby knew what Harry was worth (not
just hero-worshipping). And because of this, Dobby sacrificed
his life to help Harry and his friends to safety. Something
I think no other house-elf would've done even if Harry had
helped them.



From sweenlit at gmail.com  Thu Jun 26 19:08:38 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:08:38 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron/cloak question
In-Reply-To: <007801c8d7a9$3c9a5010$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>
References: <1214467719.3139.28514.m54@yahoogroups.com>
	 <007801c8d7a9$3c9a5010$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806261208l32885afi83d287ef837a4c52@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183459

Magpie:
Until DH I see no indication that Harry's cloak is any better than any
other invisibility cloak.

Lynda:
There are textual references throughout the books that Harry's cloak is not
wearing out, though, which led me to wonder, early on, what was so different
about it, compared to other invisibility cloaks.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From kennyg1864 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 17:00:25 2008
From: kennyg1864 at yahoo.com (kennyg1864)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:00:25 -0000
Subject: Ron/cloak question
In-Reply-To: <007801c8d7a9$3c9a5010$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>
Message-ID: <g40hv9+1guq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183460

> Jerri:
> Until DH I see no indication that Harry's cloak is any
> better than any other invisibility cloak. Harry never
> sees glimpses of parts of the people who are watching
> him under cloaks, for example. And while Arthur has the
> cloak fall off, disclosing parts of him in OoP, Harry
> also has his cloak not cover him entirely in HBP, when
> he is doing that very stupid act of hiding in Draco's
> compartment, and Draco sees his foot.


I for one would like to know why Ignotus Peverell had
such a chintzy tailor.  IIRC "feet being visible" is a
worry more than once while skulking around the corridors
of Hogwarts.  Or maybe Ignotus thought he was a size L
but was really an XL. :P

kennyg1864, who obviously isn't much help for zanooda's
quote






From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Jun 26 20:08:10 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:08:10 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/Ron's Cloak/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g40mel+tgu3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g40sva+nn41@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183461

> Pippin:
> If he didn't care about the students, why remain headmaster when
> Voldemort was taking over? It would have been far easier to organize
> resistance to Voldemort as Minister of Magic. 

Magpie:
No it wouldn't. Dumbledore was in the most powerful position there 
was as Headmaster of Hogwarts. In the center of the action and 
overseeing Harry Potter. He didn't want to be MoM for his own 
reasons, not because he just couldn't leave his students. (Even 
Voldemort took over the Ministry as his second choice.)

Pippin: 
> You're also forgetting his speech in GoF, where he begs the school 
to
> unite and tells them all, looking at the Slytherin Table, that they
> will be welcome at Hogwarts at any time. > Slytherins want to win, 
so the way to recruit them is to convince them
> that Voldemort is going to lose, or that they will lose by joining
> him. Dumbledore never misses an opportunity to emphasize that. He
> wants them on his side, unlike McGonagall, who loses trust in Snape
> once she learns that he was a Death Eater, and who who takes the 
first
> opportunity to get rid of the Slytherins once she's in power. 

Magpie:
I think he misses tons of opportunities. One Significant Look at the 
Slytherin table doesn't come to much (a look that had it been given 
to a normal house would have been an insult!), especially when he's 
not actually doing anything to bring the school together. He's the 
headmaster. He can do more than just beg them after presiding over 
the friction. As it happens that wasn't a big part of his plan and it 
wasn't necessary. 

Pippin: 
> But DD's not about to indoctrinate people against their parents. And
> he isn't about pity either. Dumbledore's own father was an outlaw 
and
> so was his brother; he knows exactly what it's like to grow up being
> treated like you come from a family of criminals. He doesn't pity 
the
> Slytherin kids because he didn't like being pitied himself. Who 
would?

Magpie:
I don't see any evidence that Dumbledore is worried about any of this 
or even why he's supposed to be worried about reaching out to the 
Slytherins and teaching them something like good morals out of fear, 
as if this will somehow make them feel like they come from families 
of criminals. He doesn't have to pity someone to do any of this. 
There's no reason to pity them.

Pippin: 
> People keep thinking that "epitome of goodness" is synonymous with
> sainthood, and it's obviously not. A saint is a living example of
> holiness, as George jokingly reminds us in DH. That's as far beyond
> ordinary goodness as Voldemort is  beyond ordinary evil. > 
Dumbledore is the epitome of ordinary goodness; he expects to do well
> by doing good.

Magpie:
I think people are suggesting he doesn't epitomize ordinary goodness 
either for them. But really, "epitome of goodness" sounds like quite 
lavish praise to me. Do you really think that when JKR used that 
phrase she meant to say that he's challenged in this area but does 
the best he can? She's said he's inherently good as well. I think she 
means just that.

Pippin:
> Yes, Dumbledore had a material as well as a moral reason for 
planning
> to let Snape to kill him instead of Draco. But that plan was spoiled
> when he lost the wand. At the moment  on the tower when
> Dumbledore decides to talk Draco out of killing him, the plan looks
> completely trashed.

Magpie:
Dumbledore hasn't been able to send for Snape, but there was every 
reason to think Snape would arrive. Stalling is the best thing 
Dumbledore can do in this situation. He's not alone with Harry to be 
able to have a heart to heart, doesn't want Harry out in the open, 
and he doesn't seem to have ever planned to tell Harry about the 
sword anyway. His other choice is to just lie there and wait for the 
Death Eaters. (Draco's not going to kill him regardless.) His last 
moments are still good ones, imo. They're not some big sacrifice of 
the plan, but he is, as you say, using those last moments well. 
Unfortunately for me that was the whole meaning of it. 

Actually, it's kind of good putting this speech side by side with his 
speech in GoF, another moment where Dumbledore shows off all these 
great things he stands for without any of it actually needing to be 
effective or dramatized. In fact, in both places we wound up with 
other people not having much response to his speech. 


Pippin:
 No wonder that  Snape  hesitates. They are way,
> way  off plan.

Magpie:
I thought he just hesitated because he still didn't want to do it. 

Pippin:
> But with all this going on, Dumbledore chooses to save Draco's soul,
> the action with the most moral importance but the least obvious
> benefit to the war. If it had turned out that saving Draco had some
> major material benefit, we would think that Dumbledore could have
> foreseen it, as he did with Pettigrew, and that would diminish the
> moral impact of his choice.

Magpie:
Least obvious benefit--this is what I thought was going to be key, 
but it wasn't. In the end I was surprised that there was far less 
benefit than I would have expected, if any at all. Dumbledore 
actually could have just sat there and waited for the DEs and gotten 
exactly the same benefit. He just wasn't making a big gamble here. He 
saw an opportunity to give this lecture, did it and noted it. A nice 
thing to do, and not interfering with the plan already in place. But 
Draco himself wasn't important except for Dumbledore to say he was 
important.

With Peter we also get the "save his life even though he doesn't 
deserve it" with the emphasis being on "he doesn't deserve it." Harry 
lets Peter go and as a reward he'll die later because he's in Harry's 
debt and so Harry has some power over him.

Pippin: 
> It could have been powerful and dramatic for Draco to do something
> positive to help Harry. But it would have been completely off 
message,
> IMO, both in showing us through Dumbledore what moral behavior is
> supposed to be, and in showing us through people's reactions to
> Slytherin how morality can be subverted.

Magpie:
I don't see why it's off message to demonstrate the lesson "save 
people even if they don't deserve it" by showing that maybe they do 
deserve it--so stop thinking of them that way. Or perhaps suggesting 
that someone could actually learn goodness because it makes sense 
when they've been brought up otherwise, and become better. 

I know that superior people demonstrating textbook virtues just 
because they are textbook virtues (like a code of chivalry) should 
make it all the more selfless, and in some contexts that would be the 
way it came across. But here it feels just frankly masturbatory to 
me. Draco can be saved because he's too weak to cause any real harm 
to the good side-watch us save his sorry arse. If he were stronger, 
he'd have to be taken out. But since he shows he doesn't have it in 
him to harm people, the last time we see him he's being punched for 
not behaving as he should, having been rescued by Harry and Ron. Did 
Dumbledore's talk have any good effect on him? We don't know and it 
doesn't matter. What matters is admiring Dumbledore performing his 
goodness. 

I actually think JKR might be a bit repulsed by the idea that Draco 
might have actually approached being a good person as a result of any 
of this. Not because I know what's in her head, but honestly, reading 
the books and listening to many things she's said in interviews it 
does seem important to her that too much transformation doesn't 
happen and he doesn't steal anybody's thunder. Again, I'm not trying 
to read her mind, I'm looking at stuff that she's said about these 
subjects. And obviously, she wasn't interested in writing that story 
in the book.

Pippin:
With the Slytherins,  JKR is more interested in the ways that
> decent people can be persuaded to ignore that message. One of them 
is
> to slant everything that they hear about a certain group towards
> making them think that group is both scary and inferior. IMO,
> Slytherin is her thought experiment for that. 

Magpie:
Is the "thought experiment" the Slytherins? Because Slytherins are 
scary and inferior. That's canon. She can't say, "I tricked you into 
thinking Slytherins are scary and inferior by inventing them by 
showing them consistently being that way!" They don't exist in any 
other way. What's the trick of creating a group of fictional people 
who are always one way and winding up with the audience associating 
them with those traits?

Alla:
And I just do not get how this is showing that Draco's soul is
valuable because it exists, it sounds more like tit for tat to me. Oh
Dumbledore saved him and Draco in turn did something because he
understood how Dumbledore was trying to do something for him.

Magpie:
Well, Draco understanding that somebody tried to do something for him-
-which he seemed to be understanding at the time--would represent 
some logical progression. For me, just as I thought (wrongly) 
Dumbledore was actually risking something with Draco with no clear 
benefit, I thought Draco would just as adamantly *not* have done 
anything good *as a payment.* He would just have demonstrated the 
things HBP seemed to have been teaching him. It's not about debts. 

Instead, he and Peter are both basically hopeless, but it's 
strategically okay to let them be. Peter because "saving him" was 
actually just sending him off with a booby trap that will have 
benefit at a later date. With Draco he's just not a threat so he can 
live and be inferior. Much as James Potter could die assured he had 
heroically saved the non-deserving and ungrateful Snape. It actually 
feels to me sometimes like none of these characters fully taking the 
opportunity for redemption offered was important from the get go in 
the series. The appeal is partly in their remaining safely awful and 
forgiven for it. 

It may sound counter-intuitive to say that the bad person should show 
themselves to deserve it--and I'm not saying that's always the right 
way to go in every story. It doesn't always happen that way. But to 
me having a good result from this type of offer creates a story with 
more humility. And those stories are often more about why this is 
the "right" thing to do. It requires granting the bad person some 
quality independent of the good person. For all the talk of good 
characters doing things for the bad characters without expecting pay 
back, the story is clearly very aware of how much everybody owes 
Harry and Dumbledore at all times. I think it's very concerned with 
that on the meta-level. 


Jerri
> I know that lots of people in the past few days have been writing 
> about this comment of Ron's, and I don't remember who said it 
first, 
> but I am certain that it was never made, and certainly wasn't made 
on 
> the first Christmas when Harry got the cloak.

Magpie:
I know I've been doing a lot of writing about it and I can tell you 
that I didn't get it from the books. There was a comment that quoted 
Ron saying something about it but I didn't look up the quote myself!

But I, too, never thought Harry's cloak seemed extraordinary. We 
didn't have any other ones to compare it to, and I especially 
remembered Moody's being able to see through it. How can Moody see 
through it but not Death?

Lynda:
There are textual references throughout the books that Harry's cloak 
is not wearing out, though, which led me to wonder, early on, what 
was so different about it, compared to other invisibility cloaks

Magpie:
Where are these references? I don't remember them. I also don't 
remember any reference to other invisibility cloaks that *do* wear 
out. Why would I assume they were different than Harry's? And how 
would I even know how old or used Harry's was so that it should have 
worn out?

bboyminn:

Not quite sure where to step in here. So, to the general subject,
let me remind you that we can't say 'all Slytherins are bad'
because we haven't met 'all Slytherins'.

Even at the school, Harry primarily interacts with a select
group of Slytherins. There are several Slytherins in his year,
even in his class, whose names he doesn't know. Which tells me
that THOSE Slytherins minded their own business and didn't get
in Harry's face. It is Draco and his immediate circle that are
the main problem, but the rest of Slytherins, aside from
laughing at a joke now and then, stay in the background and
mind their own business.

Magpie:
Sure we don't know every Slytherin, but as a group they're 
consistently portrayed negatively. Even minor characters show up to 
be negative. We've got the Quidditch team, including the substitute 
Seeker, all the people in the IS, various crowds who don't just laugh 
at an occasional joke but cackle nastily at the heroes and enjoy 
their distress, the other two boys in Draco's year being either tied 
to DEs or blood prejudice, even Hermione casually worrying that "some 
Slytherin" will go to Umbridge and rat them out, the flag 
conspicuously absent from the RoR, Voldemort proudly wanting 
everybody to be Slytherin, their password being Pureblood, the gang 
of Slytherins who all became DEs Snape hung out with, etc...

No, we don't know everyone. But they're a fictional group who are 
always consistently characterized with at least some qualities from a 
negative constellation of traits. Even the "good" Slytherins have 
ties to the worst of these qualities. It would be silly to do that 
all the way through and then expect people to not just get that 
there's something wrong with Slytherins. 

-m





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Thu Jun 26 20:14:32 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:14:32 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Are we being too critical? (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue))
References: <43e41d1e0806251139q96c1e2aud0d20c1bdaf70b03@mail.gmail.com> <g400ag+alrh@eGroups.com> <43e41d1e0806261155o4dc80623gf3429c7df9e8d165@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <006d01c8d7c9$408ed540$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 183462

> Potioncat:
> I don't see the exclusive negativity that you mention, but that may
> just be our own differing perceptions
>
> Lynda:
> It waxes and wanes like everything else. I've just been noticing a lot of
> very critical posting recently, that seems to be focused on what people
> wanted to see that did not happen or was left out.

Shelley:
See, to me, this isn't NEGATIVITY...it's DISCUSSION! (Not shouting, just 
emphasizing.) Negativity, to me, is only in the eye of the beholder who 
feels uncomfortable talking critically about a subject. Some don't have a 
tolerance for critical comments, as they tend to take them personally, 
rather than focus on what's being discussed. It seems like we keep going 
round and round on this. I wasn't seeing anything other than focus on the 
series itself- as pointed out so detailed by others- the list of things that 
they found wrong/distracting/boring about the last book, things that made 
the series less enjoyable for them. Remove that part of this list, and all 
you have is a hallow and rather shallow fan club that shouts "Rah, rah 
Rowling!" without any substance to it. Talking about the book critically is 
the substance of this list- the meat of it. You have to take the good with 
the bad (or in this case, the "bad" with the good), and I'd just as well 
rather getting back to talking about the book rather than to talk about how 
we feel about others talking about the book. So what if (one person) thinks 
we are being negative and critical....to mention it only stifles the 
conversation, does it not?

That we wanted a perfect book- no, I don't see anyone saying that. That only 
puts people on the defensive unnecessarily- it's too close to an attack on 
the person for thinking critically about why this book doesn't satisfy like 
the earlier ones in the series did. The focus is not on what we wanted to 
see happen that didn't happen- again, I think that view is a shallow one 
too- placing emphasis on the reader as being disappointed only because they 
had some fantasy book that would never be written in their mind while 
reading DH as Rowling wrote it. There is a clear difference to me in the 
quality of the series, right up until Book 7 (and some even see it in Book 
6), and some of us are evaluating WHY we feel that these last books are 
different. To do that, we have to see what's different- plot arcs that 
weren't resolved, and new ones that were introduced that distract from the 
series (the many deaths, for me, that seem to be way overdone, and the 
Hallows arc, and the camping, and the mostly-doing-nothing part of the book) 
and how they make us feel. I'm sorry if the last book didn't produce all 
warm and fuzzies for me, and that it bothers you for me to say so, but that 
isn't going to stop me from analyzing the last book in detail to see what 
could have been different to make it a better and more fitting ending for an 
otherwise excellent series.

Montavilla47 did an excellent list of reasons why this series disappointed 
him- if I wrote a post like his it would overlap many of his comments, and 
then double them. But, I'm not going to take the time now to write my long 
post describing all of these events for me, but prefer rather to just 
comment on them when they show up in others posts, as I have been doing all 
along.

Shelley




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 21:05:13 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:05:13 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron/cloak question
In-Reply-To: <007801c8d7a9$3c9a5010$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>
References: <1214467719.3139.28514.m54@yahoogroups.com> <007801c8d7a9$3c9a5010$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>
Message-ID: <48640489.2000006@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183463

Jerri/Dan:
I know that lots of people in the past few days have been writing
about this comment of Ron's, and I don't remember who said it first,
but I am certain that it was never made, and certainly wasn't made on
the first Christmas when Harry got the cloak.

CJ:
OK, folks, to clear up the mystery, I confess to being the source, based 
on a misremembering of Ron's words, which Jerri/Dan has now quoted 
correctly. In response to Lynda's assertion that there were clues 
(pointing ultimately to the DH) throughout the series that the Cloak was 
special, I suggested the only clue I could think of was Ron's comment 
that it was in really good shape. Which obviously he didn't say. But I 
did. So I'll be going now.

CJ (slinking off)




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 27 01:44:34 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:44:34 -0000
Subject: OOP Chapter 14-16 Post DH look
Message-ID: <g41gm2+rjld@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183464

And we are back with brief overview of all things that jumped at me 
in a new angle after canon is complete :)

I do think that but for Umbridge and what occurred at the end of the 
book I am actually finding it quite enjoyable, but heee, too much 
Umbridge.

In Chapter 14 I am wondering if this quote by Ron is not meant to be 
another foreshadowing of the end of the book.

:The ministry suspects he's one of Dumbledore's lot so - I dunno - 
they lured him to the Ministry, and he wasn't trying to get through a 
door at all! Maybe they've just made something up to get him!" - p.288

And we get Percy's letter. Percy, Percy, Percy as I mentioned before 
I felt a little bit bad for you when I was rereading the discussion 
of your fight with Arthur, but boy I want to slap you for this 
letter. Not once but many times.

Who the heck you are to pass that judgment on your parents, eh?


And we have that famous quote by Sirius "Yes, but the world isn't 
split into good people and death eaters" - p.302.

Funnily, he is not saying that the world is not split into good 
people and evil people. I wonder.

Chapter 15, Hogwarts High Inquisitor, oh boy, can somebody squish 
this woman? Pretty please?

But I do find the inspections funny and yes, I still find Minerva not 
giving Harry the support IMO to be one of her lowest points in the 
series.

Chapter 16, In the Hog's head, you know it is funny that I always 
defend Hermione for her no nonsense and I know better than anybody 
else how to deal with people style of living? leadership? Style of 
something, let's just leave it that way.

But when I say that Hermione is my very least favorite member of the 
Trio, I am being very very honest.

I will never doubt that Hermione means well and often when she says 
she knows best, she indeed knows best.

I will never ever doubt that if Hermione is my friend, I will feel 
very confident that she will watch my back and will be very loyal.

But I am telling you I would be very wary of being friends with 
Hermione in the first place. I will never let my friend treat me the 
way Hermione treats Harry and Ron sometimes.

Yes, yes, I know she is a genuis, and she loves them and she helps 
them with their homework, but I swear if my friend would pull on me 
the crap that she pulls on Harry in this chapter, my friend would 
have to do some very heavy apologizing, and I still may tell this 
friend to go away.

I cannot stand being forced to do something that I do not want to do. 
And before you ask, of course I mean in the social setting in the 
circle of friends, I do get to do what I not always want at work 
gasilion times.

So I do not doubt Hermione's heart, I do not doubt that she knows how 
to handle enemies, it is her patronizing manner of dealing with the 
friends, the little things is what gets to me.

I can only take her as part of the trio, god forbid she would be the 
main character, I do not know for how long I would continue the books.

Oh and yes, I know Hermione's insistence forced Harry to realise that 
he likes teaching. I really do not care, it is the way she did is 
that make me want to slap her.

I think this is one of the things where I disagree with JKR, hehe.

Alla




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 27 03:23:40 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:23:40 -0000
Subject: Ron/cloak question
In-Reply-To: <48640489.2000006@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g41mfs+6rta@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183465

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:

> OK, folks, to clear up the mystery, I confess to being the source, 
> based on a misremembering of Ron's words, which Jerri/Dan has now 
> quoted correctly. In response to Lynda's assertion that there were 
> clues (pointing ultimately to the DH) throughout the series that 
> the Cloak was special, I suggested the only clue I could think of 
> was Ron's comment that it was in really good shape. Which obviously 
> he didn't say. 


zanooda:

Aha! Now we know who started the false rumor :-)! But seriously, me
too, I can't remember any clues in the books about cloaks before DH.
There were these Mad-Eye's words that suggest that ICs can be of
different quality: "Found it (the OotP picture) last night when I was
looking for my spare Invisibility Cloak, seeing as Podmore hasn't had
the manners to return my best one ..." (OotP, p.173). This means that
one of Mad-Eye's cloaks is better (newer?) than the other. However,
there is nothing here about Harry's Cloak being the best of all :-).

Anyway, I can't remember any canon (pre-DH, of course) about Harry's
Cloak being special, but I must say that I haven't reread the previous
books yet since DH was out, so when I start rereading, I will pay
attention and look for clues, just in case :-).




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Fri Jun 27 03:34:58 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:34:58 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Are we being too critical? (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue))
In-Reply-To: <006d01c8d7c9$408ed540$6401a8c0@homemain>
References: <43e41d1e0806251139q96c1e2aud0d20c1bdaf70b03@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g400ag+alrh@eGroups.com>
	 <43e41d1e0806261155o4dc80623gf3429c7df9e8d165@mail.gmail.com>
	 <006d01c8d7c9$408ed540$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806262034m609c1f31rb9fcafa13f91e463@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183466

Shelley:
Montavilla47 did an excellent list of reasons why this series disappointed
him- if I wrote a post like his it would overlap many of his comments, and
then double them. But, I'm not going to take the time now to write my long
post describing all of these events for me, but prefer rather to just
comment on them when they show up in others posts, as I have been doing all
along.
Lynda:
A list to which I have responded several times. I don't mind critical
discussion. I like it. But there's a difference between critical discussion
and what amounts to harping certain aspects of the books that people wanted
a different outcome to.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 27 04:00:32 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:00:32 -0000
Subject: Are we being too critical? (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue))
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0806262034m609c1f31rb9fcafa13f91e463@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g41ol0+b1h6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183467

> Lynda:
> A list to which I have responded several times. I don't mind 
critical
> discussion. I like it. But there's a difference between critical 
discussion
> and what amounts to harping certain aspects of the books that 
people wanted
> a different outcome to.
> 
>

Alla:


But who determines that difference between critical discussion and 
not erm, not really critical? And why people should even have to 
defend themselves that what they are arguing is somehow less critical 
or something?

What to you is harping on the same aspects, to others is just that 
critical discussion.

Say house unity thing. Myself I totally do not get where in the story 
people saw the theme of house unity as something that just has to be 
resolved in a major way, in fact besides that song I saw no clues in 
the book whatsoever.

Take Draco's arc as discussed in another thread. Even I felt after 
Tower that story was pulling me into the direction of Draco being 
redeemed. I did not particularly care for it, but intuitively that is 
how I felt his conflict will be resolved.

I was surprised but quite happy how it went instead, but again many 
people who loved the books before felt that story is major lacking 
because of that. They may still like other books by the way.

I harped on Snape shortcomings for years as I perceive them and may 
do so again from time to time. Should I just shut it because some 
people may find it annoying? I really do not think so.

Why exactly anybody should defend their mindset, I am not quite sure.

We are talking about books here, right? Not about readers.

JMO,

Alla, who does think that this is moving more and more in OT area





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 27 04:01:25 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:01:25 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
In-Reply-To: <g40crj+gbhe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g41oml+fhbk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183468

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chelsealwferguson"
<chelsealwferguson at ...> wrote:

> > 8) What did you think was the explanation for Dumbledore's
> > eye in the broken mirror?

 
> We know this already, it was Alberforth's eye, not Albus'.


zanooda:

I believe that Zara wants to know what we thought about the eye in the
mirror at the time we read this chapter for the first time, not now
:-). We didn't know for sure back then that it was Aberforth :-). I
remember that the eye puzzled me, both in this chapter and in "In
Memoriam", because we were never told that the Dumbledore brothers had
the same eyes. 

Now I think I should have guessed, because in that old picture of the
Dumbledores both boys are described as "very alike", and their father
has the twinkle in the eye, just like DD. It seems obvious to me now
that both boys inherited their father's eyes, but back then I didn't
know what to think - did DD meet with Sirius behind the veil and used
his mirror to look after Harry <bg>? 

I only started considering Abe something like one page earlier than
Harry saw the mirror on his fireplace :-). I know most of the readers
guessed much earlier (and some maybe knew from the very beginning
:-)), but I was really slow on this one ;-(.




From kennyg1864 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 26 17:59:36 2008
From: kennyg1864 at yahoo.com (kennyg1864)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:59:36 -0000
Subject: Question #4--Why so long for the last Horcrux? (small addition)
In-Reply-To: <g3tr4g+l01b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g40le8+amck@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183469

Small addition below that may or may not help...


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kennyg1864" <kennyg1864 at ...>
wrote:
> Thus by 1946 or so, LV's soul is in 6 pieces (5 H's + LV
> himself). But IIRC he wanted it to be in the mystical 7
> pieces. So he created an H in Nagini (in 1994).

> Why did he wait almost 5o years for the mystical 7th piece?
> Obviously he didn't have much opportunity to do so from 1981
> to 1994. But if the 7th piece was so important, why did he
> waste 35 years (1946-1981) *not* creating it? And especially
> in the period between 1946 and 1970, when he "came out" as
> LV (no longer Riddle), he would want to have "ultimate
> protection", since the formation of a group like the OotP
> was inevitable.


I just discovered that *Harry's* death was to be the 7th H:

DD: "He seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes
for particularly significant deaths. You would certainly have
been that. He believed that in killing you, he was destroying
the danger the prophesy had outlined. He believed he was making
himself invincible. I am sure that he was intending to make his
final Horcrux with your death." (HBP, ch 23)

However, this doesn't change that LV waited almost 35 years,
since he didn't know of the Prophecy until 1980.

kennyg1864, who wonders if maybe LV got hooked on the WW version
of the Wii during that time



From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 27 06:37:55 2008
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:37:55 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/ Draco
In-Reply-To: <g40oj7+kfn1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g421s3+hjja@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183470

>  Pippin:
> <SNIP>
> But with all this going on, Dumbledore chooses to save Draco's soul,
> the action with the most moral importance but the least obvious
> benefit to the war. If it had turned out that saving Draco had some
> major material benefit, we would think that Dumbledore could have
> foreseen it, as he did with Pettigrew, and that would diminish the
> moral impact of his choice. <SNIP>

Alla:
> And I just do not get how this is showing that Draco's soul is
> valuable because it exists, it sounds more like tit for tat to me.
> Oh Dumbledore saved him and Draco in turn did something because he
> understood how Dumbledore was trying to do something for him.

Magpie:
> It may sound counter-intuitive to say that the bad person should
> show themselves to deserve it--and I'm not saying that's always the
> right way to go in every story. It doesn't always happen that way.
> But to me having a good result from this type of offer creates a 
> story with more humility. And those stories are often more about
> why this is the "right" thing to do. It requires granting the bad
> person some quality independent of the good person. For all the 
> talk of good characters doing things for the bad characters without
> expecting pay back, the story is clearly very aware of how much
> everybody owes Harry and Dumbledore at all times. I think it's very
> concerned with that on the meta-level.

Jen: I'm torn on this topic, very torn.  On one hand Pippin & Alla 
offer very compelling arguments for why the tower scene stands alone 
with no other resolution needed than the one offered: that Dumbledore 
convinced Draco he wasn't a killer and helped Draco save his own soul 
in the process.  Even if Draco didn't have a defining moment in DH, 
he also didn't follow in his father's footsteps, a trajectory that 
appeared to be his destiny when HBP opened.

OTOH, I find myself tending toward Magpie's way of thinking when it 
comes to Draco or any number of secondary characters in DH (with the 
exception that I'd include Dumbledore as another who owed Harry even 
though he was dead - quite a feat).  I've polished my Defenders of 
Harry badge since day 1 in this group, but even I noticed that the 
sun never set on Harry in DH.  He *was* the sun while everyone else 
revolved around him.  He broke into the MOM AND Gringotts AND escaped 
with oppressed people & an abused dragon in tow!  He put grown men in 
their places and had them thanking him for it later!  He transformed 
an enemy into a faithful (and clean) servant!  And in a final round 
knockout, he brought one of the greatest wizards ever to his knees, 
groveling for forgiveness.  Oh, and along the way he finally defeated 
Voldemort as expected.

OK, OK, this is tongue in cheek; I'm *not* down on HP, not at all, 
liked DH more and more with each reading and count several moments 
among my favorite scenes ever.  But would it really have undermined 
Harry that much to have other characters do something important 
besides start Harry Potter fan clubs & remind each other to keep the 
faith because Harry would surely save the day soon?  I cheered 
Aberforth heartily in part because I liked him taking Harry to task, 
something most teenagers need now and again, and because he didn't 
revere Dumbledore like everyone else did.  If there was a flaw in 
JKR's plan, it was that she loved Harry too much. ;)  I believe she 
said that herself in interviews and it showed, imo.  And that caused 
me to love Harry a little less, something that I never expected to 
happen and didn't want to feel.  Darn you JKR!

> Now nothing came out of it for **Draco's character**, sure  that I 
> would agree with, although I personally would not be hundred 
> percent sure of it either, with his hesitation of identifying the 
> trio, etc.  But the message that Pippin is talking about IMO was
> delivered the best way it could have been.

Jen: I thought Draco was trying his best to do something positive 
when he didn't identify the Trio at Malfoy Manor.  Also when he 
attempted to keep Crabbe/Goyle from killing Harry.  Neither effort 
amounted to much though: the Trio were still identified and Draco had 
to be saved by Harry in the ROR.  I believe that's the droopiness 
Montavilla was referring to, the fact that Draco's efforts to do the 
right thing fizzled into nothingness or transformed into another 
opportunity for Harry to save the day rather than having meaning for 
Draco.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Jun 27 11:47:18 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:47:18 -0000
Subject: Are we being too critical? (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue))
In-Reply-To: <g41ol0+b1h6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g42k06+orof@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183471

 
> Alla: 
> But who determines that difference between critical discussion and 
> not erm, not really critical? And why people should even have to 
> defend themselves that what they are arguing is somehow less critical 
> or something?
> 
> What to you is harping on the same aspects, to others is just that 
> critical discussion.

Potioncat:
I sort of agree. But the discussion flows much better, whether critical 
dicussion or opinion pieces, if there is canon support or literary 
background to back up the statement.

If I say, "This book sucks because Snape died." and Alla counters 
with "Snape's death was the touch that made this book perfect." then 
all we'll have is a tennis match if we continue back and forth in 
simple opinions.

However, if I say, 'The change in Draco's arc negates the religious 
allusions from the Tower scene because the redemption isn't carried 
out." then Geoff could counter with "Draco shows a different aspect of 
man's struggle to find the right path." And pretty soon we'd pull 
examples from the 7 books and who knows where else will happen.

But I do feel Lynda's pain, having experienced something similar 
several years ago at this very spot.  ;-)

This might be a perfect thread to send over to OT. It's much too quiet 
over there right now.

Alla and Geoff were portrayed by celebrity impersonators, and the 
opinions as stated may not reflect Alla's or Geoff's interpretations of 
canon.




From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Fri Jun 27 11:49:30 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:49:30 -0500
Subject: Question #4--Why so long for the last Horcrux? (small addition)
References: <1214539417.1645.69874.m53@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <001501c8d84b$dc90c0c0$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>

No: HPFGUIDX 183472

> However, this doesn't change that LV waited almost 35 years,
> since he didn't know of the Prophecy until 1980.
>
> kennyg1864, who wonders if maybe LV got hooked on the WW version
> of the Wii during that time

"Maths again!"

There are lots of things that JKR does very well.  (One major example, 
to me, is how she has her child characters grow.  The Harry in SS/PS 
is 11, the one in GoF is 14, etc.  In so many fantasy series about 
children, the kids don't seem to age realistically.)  But timelines 
seem to be rather a weakness.  We see this over and over.  The missing 
24 hours, the timing of the full moon, the age of the older Weasley 
brothers, and many more.  That aspect of the books is one I have to 
just let roll by with a "it's just a book/series" shrug, rather than 
try to analyze or try to make things fit.

Jerri 





From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Fri Jun 27 13:03:15 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:03:15 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
In-Reply-To: <g41oml+fhbk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g42oej+oqfi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183473

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
> ---> 
> > > 8) What did you think was the explanation for Dumbledore's
> > > eye in the broken mirror?
> 
>> 
> snip
> zanooda:
> 
> I> I only started considering Abe something like one page earlier than
> Harry saw the mirror on his fireplace :-). I know most of the readers
> guessed much earlier (and some maybe knew from the very beginning
> :-)), but I was really slow on this one ;-(.

>
Gosh so was I . I had no idea until Harry met Abe in Hogwarts when he 
saved them from Death Eaters. Alot of things only hit me when they 
actual happened, not before. 
Sign of old age I think (vbg)

Jayne
just popping in to make this point




From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Fri Jun 27 13:40:13 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:40:13 -0500
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
References: <1214467719.3139.28514.m54@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <002f01c8d85b$541a1c40$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>

No: HPFGUIDX 183474

Many thanks to Zara for the great summary and questions!

>Hermione silently points her wand at Harry and casts a hex
> that makes his face swollen and painful.

For a moment I thought that this was a betrayal.

> Eager for the reward Voldemort has promised, Greyback takes his
> group, the Trio, the Sword, and his other prisoners (Dean Thomas and
> the goblin Griphook) to Malfoy Manor, which is being used as a base
> by Voldemort.

What a coincidence!  In fantasy worlds like Tolkien's where the 
characters acknowledge some supernatural force helping the side of 
good, when things would seem to be coincidence, reference to this 
supernatural force allows this reader to accept the coincidence for 
the sake of the story.  I miss that in the Harry Potter books.  We 
have an afterlife and apparent rewards and punishments, but 
supernatural intervention in the affairs of man and wizard isn't 
referred to explicitly.  In today's world I suppose that JKR felt she 
had to keep the books secular, but the loss of involvement of "God" or 
"god" or "gods" or "angels" or whatever makes it a bit more difficult 
for me to swallow the number of coincidences needed to make things 
work out.  And this chapter is full of them.  If the sword hadn't been 
out of the beaded bag and visible when Harry pulled his dum-dum.  If 
Griphook hadn't been present also.  If Olivander hadn't been in the 
same cell as Harry.  If Dobby hadn't arrived AFTER Draco took Griphook 
away.  Peter's silver hand.  So many other things that had to go just 
right.

> Discussion Questions:
> 1) What did you think of Harry's story, that he is a Slytherin
> named Vernon Dudley whose father works at the Ministry?

I was reminded of the time in PoA when Harry said he was Neville 
Longbottom, when he thought the MoM was after him for blowing up Aunt 
Marge.  The fact that he could describe the Slytherin common room 
certainly helped his case.

> 2) Greyback takes the party to Malfoy Manor rather than
> summoning Voldemort himself. Harry surmises this is because
>Greyback is not a marked Death Eater. What do you think?

I do think that by DH JKR had decided to not have V allow werewolves 
to be full members of the Death Eaters, and this was one of the ways 
she chose to try to show this.  I am not sure if she had reached this 
conclusion in HBP, when Greyback is able to get onto the spell blocked 
tower, which supposedly required a Dark Mark to get past the barrier, 
at that point in time.

> 3) Narcissa Malfoy seems to have some authority: Greyback and
> his men defer to her, and she decides to let them in. What is her
> status, do you think? Which events of this chapter helped to form
> that opinion?

Well, it is her home.  And she hadn't been publicly disgraced like 
Lucius had been.  I think that when V was in residence, she kept her 
head down.  But in his absence she reverted to Lady of the Manor.  The 
fact that Snape was busy being Headmaster and probably the senior 
Death Eater on site was her sister probably made this easier.  (And 
Snape either liked her or chose to act that way also.)

> 4) What did you think of Draco in the scene where he is asked to
> identify Harry?

I think it was actually pretty brave of Draco.  If Lord V ever 
suspected that he had refused to identify Harry on purpose he (and 
probably his family) would be toast.  Since Harry's appearance was 
messed up a bit, Draco apparently felt he could get away with not 
being sure.  I think that Draco hadn't liked watching the things that 
had been happening at Malfoy Manor.  I imagine that the death of the 
Muggle Studies teacher wasn't the only nasty thing Draco had 
experienced during the time this book takes.  Draco didn't want to see 
people he knew die horribly in front of his eyes, even HRH.  He either 
didn't know what he could do to help, or wasn't willing to go as far 
as to help, but he wasn't going to work against them either, if it was 
avoidable.

> 6) Did you learn anything knew about/form any new opinions of
> Bellatrix in this chapter?

Up until this chapter I wasn't sure how much Bellatrix knew about the 
horcrux's.  I assume from this chapter that she at least knew about 
the Cup, having been given the job of keeping it safe in her Gringotts 
vault.  She may or may not have known that there were others as well. 
I would guess that she thought the Cup was the only horcurx, or at 
least the only one she knew about.

Lets see.  V apparently hid the ring himself at his maternal 
grandfather's old home.  He used the house elf of a Black family 
member to help hide the locket.  He entrusted the diary to Lucius 
Malfoy, and the cup to Bellatrix.  The diadem he hid himself, (would 
you say with the help of Hogwarts and the RoR?) and Nagini he kept 
with him much of the time.

The fact that Snape was the most important DE that we know about, who 
wasn't entrusted by V with the secret of a horcrux might show that V 
thought that Snape was the one who would be the biggest potential 
danger if Snape were to turn against V?  Or was putting Snape in as 
Headmaster V's way to have Snape guard the Diadem?

> 7) What did you think prompted Bella's extreme fear when she
> believed the Sword of Gryffindor was stolen from her vault?

If the Sword was taken from her vault, then what else might have been 
taken as well?  She feared for the safety of the Cup as well as for 
what V would do if there was any hint that the Cup was in danger.

> 8) What did you think was the explanation for Dumbledore's eye
> in the broken mirror?

At the time I didn't know.  I was pretty sure it wasn't DD, or at 
least a living DD, and I expected Aberforth to become important 
eventually, but hadn't really connected him with the eye.

> 9) "May your loyalty never waver again", Voldemort said to Peter
> after giving him the silver hand in GoF. Now we know what he meant.
> What did you think of Peter's death? Did you like or dislike the way
> it ended his story? Do you see any special meaning in it?

I wonder if the hand was supposed to kill Peter the first time he 
hesitated or had second thoughts about doing what V wanted, or if it 
was linked to showing pity for Harry?  As a plot device it was good, 
as the action V took to keep Peter from betraying him ended up helping 
Harry escape.

> 11) Why do you think Griphook lied to Bella?

At this point in time Griphook didn't know what to think, but I 
believe that he hated and feared and distrusted Bella a lot, while he 
just had general purpose Goblin distrust of Harry, so he did what he 
thought Harry felt would hurt Bella the most.

> 12) What did you think was going on with Voldemort in this
>chapter? What ideas did you have concerning the identity of
>the old man in the tower?

By this point I think I was putting the GW/DD part of the plot 
together.  I suppose this is one of the cases where JKR has an Dark 
Wizard showing remorse or at least a good side.  GW seemed to be 
trying to protect DD.  We have no way of knowing how much GW knew 
about what had been happening outside of his prison walls.  (By the 
way, who/what was guarding him, and were there other dark wizard's in 
that prison.)  It may be that GW thought that DD was still alive and 
master of the Elder wand.

> 13) Can someone explain to me why Dobby's death is the one death
> in this book that originally did, and still does, move me to tears,
> even though I always found him annoying?

Dobby demonstrated unselfish bravery.  But he died knowing that he had 
saved "Harry Potter, sir" and with Harry demonstrating his caring and 
respect for Dobby.  Dobby died happy.  He had accomplished his purpose 
in life.  And Harry had the chance to morn for him, unlike some of the 
other deaths, like Hegwig's.

Jerri





From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Fri Jun 27 14:51:35 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:51:35 -0000
Subject: Deaths affecting Harry
Message-ID: <g42upn+es9j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183475

I have a question?
Out of all the deaths that Harry saw and heard about, other than his 
parents and Sirius, which do you think he was saddest about
I think it was DD, lupin, Fred and Dobby. I can't chose out of those 4
I think that he considersd DD as a surrogate Father, Lupin as a trusted 
friend and someone unbiased to give him advice , Fred as a surrogate 
brother and of course Dobby as a friend even though he was an elf

Jayne
Starting a thread for once




From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Fri Jun 27 15:03:45 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (jerrichase)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:03:45 -0000
Subject: Deaths affecting Harry
In-Reply-To: <g42upn+es9j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g42vgh+osj4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183476

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jayne" <jaynesmith62 at ...> wrote:
>
> I have a question?
> Out of all the deaths that Harry saw and heard about, other than his 
> parents and Sirius, which do you think he was saddest about
> I think it was DD, lupin, Fred and Dobby. I can't chose out of those 4
> I think that he considersd DD as a surrogate Father, Lupin as a 
trusted 
> friend and someone unbiased to give him advice , Fred as a surrogate 
> brother and of course Dobby as a friend even though he was an elf
> 
> Jayne
> Starting a thread for once

Well, people's deaths are hard to measure, and say "this is sadder than 
that".  Each of these death's were difficut for Harry.  Each has it's 
own different "sadness".  Harry saw DD, Fred, and Dobby die and 
couldn't do anything about them.  Lupin would have been difficult 
because of the disagreements Harry had with Lupin.  I am glad that they 
had a chance to meet between their disagreement at Grimauld Place and 
Lupin's death.

The death that we see disturb Harry the most in "canon" is Cedric's.  
In part becasue Harry felt that if he hadn't told Cedric to take the 
cup with him, it wouldn't have happened.  And it part becasue Harry had 
to recognize that he had been unfair to Cedric during that year.  It 
wasn't Cedric's fault that Cedric and Cho were a "couple", when Harry 
wanted her, for example.  Cedric was a good kid, who was killed for 
doing the right thing for the right reason.  

Another death that Harry will feel sad about is Snape's, as they never 
had a chance to reconcile their difficulties.

However, his visit with DD at Platform 9 3/4 and walk through the 
forest with his parents and Lupin should allow him to be less sad about 
the dead, and to feel more like Luna.

Jerri




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 27 15:35:19 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:35:19 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/ Draco/Are we being too critical?
In-Reply-To: <g421s3+hjja@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g431bn+4cpp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183477

> Jen: I thought Draco was trying his best to do something positive 
> when he didn't identify the Trio at Malfoy Manor.  Also when he 
> attempted to keep Crabbe/Goyle from killing Harry.  Neither effort 
> amounted to much though: the Trio were still identified and Draco had 
> to be saved by Harry in the ROR.  I believe that's the droopiness 
> Montavilla was referring to, the fact that Draco's efforts to do the 
> right thing fizzled into nothingness or transformed into another 
> opportunity for Harry to save the day rather than having meaning for 
> Draco.

Magpie:
For me this gets into the harping vs. criticism thing. Because I don't 
think JKR wrote it "wrong." I just think she wrote one thing and not 
another, and I'm describing what that said to me and what it didn't. I 
admit that I believe the story I was expecting after HBP was far more 
challenging a story to have written, period. It doesn't make it a 
failure that she didn't write that story, but she didn't. Describing 
the story I thought was happening at the end of HBP is not, imo, a 
criticism of JKR. I considered the end of HBP a real high point because 
I thought she'd set up such a juicy challenge for herself and I had no 
idea how she was going to pull it off--but I completely trusted that 
she would. I was just sitting back and seeing how she did it.

So it was disappointing to me personally, of course, that it turned out 
she wasn't trying to pull it off, but rather she was going to abandon 
stuff that I thought was her strongest thing (the on-going antagonistic 
relationships with Slytherins) and choose to focus on plot coupons and 
mini-quests for Harry. I know Harry can ace all of those and be 
courageous. It's a Tri-Wizard tournament on a larger scale, basically. 
As you say, Harry is indeed the center of his universe. 

Now, when it comes to what's being said about a storyline like Draco's, 
it's not just the Tower scene. That's one scene in context of 7 books. 
And for the most part what we do for 7 books is look down on Draco. 
This is also what she brings up in interviews: don't think too highly 
of him, he's just really bad, I felt sorry for him, but oh well, he and 
Harry could never be friends, I'm disturbed why people like him, etc. 

She clearly considers it something that Draco learns he's not a killer, 
even if that, too, can arguably be read as just another sign of 
cowardice. But it really in the end just seems just like a penance for 
the foolish boy who sucks but is not bad enough to require him paying 
the ultimate price. Learning and growing, the possibility that he could 
be something more, that is not part of his story. So that's the story I 
come away with. It's not particularly uplifting and it's not supposed 
to be.

I don't consider interviews canon, but the reason I refer to them is 
that where JKR is talking about her books she's telling us a bit about 
how she sees them. And real redemption (not redemption meaning buying 
themselves off through penance or managing to love somebody somewhere) 
is not what it's about. We don't have to respect Draco--or even Snape--
the way we respect good guys. That's partly, I think, why people keep 
coming up with the Calvinism idea. And why JKR would even be asked, 
after the books were over, whether Snape could be considered a hero--
which she says he is, but with obvious qualifications.  The inability 
for anyone to change all that much, in fact, is a running theme 
throughout the books. Everybody pretty much is who they were at 11. Of 
course Draco's story could never actually be transformative. 

I'm not imagining psychological motives to JKR here, just looking at 
what she says when talking about different stories. And for instance, 
when she talks about people like Draco and Pansy she refers to people 
who made fun of her in school--and not to say that back then she hated 
them but now she thinks about them differently etc. No, they are 
brought low or shown to be inferior. They're not lifted up or shown to 
change or given dignity. They're not equal to the heroes and the heroes 
never have to be friends with them. Again, just to be clear, when I say 
that I don't mean that this is the way JKR thinks about the real people 
she knew, or mean to suggest she's stunted emotionally or something. 
I'm saying that in the story this is the way the characters are used. 
And that's fine. But the story can't be about respect for the character 
and also about looking down on him. Harry doesn't see himself in Draco, 
they don't come closer together in the story. The main change is in 
Harry's growth from feeling powerless to powerful regarding Draco.

He sees himself in Snape only so far as Snape is sympathetic and 
admirable. Snape the hero who winds up safely in Harry's power, 
dependent on Harry to grant him the respect Harry thinks he has earned. 
Harry's victory includes a complete control over all of the people who 
don't like him. Each one winds up acknowledging Harry's greater power 
over him. 

So even if Dumbledore had actually risked everything over the soul of a 
boy that wasn't Harry (which he didn't), an unworthy boy, we don't 
actually see that his soul really is just as good as Harry's. It's 
like...it leaves it as Dumbledore being incredibly good by treating 
Draco as if his soul is a precious thing, just as shiny and good as 
Harry's soul. But this always remains a sign of *Dumbledore's* goodness 
in being so generous. So it always plays more like just more of the 
same conceited fantasy. It's like...have you ever met anybody who loves 
to give gifts but got really disturbed if someone gave them a gift in 
return? Because the gift isn't about actually wanting to do something 
nice for the other person, it's about seeing yourself as the one who 
gives without accepting in return. To be an actual good person, one has 
to push through that. HP is not about pushing through that. In the end, 
it's very safe that way. 

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 27 16:55:38 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:55:38 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <4861676E.5000902@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g4362a+vlcl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183478

Lynda wrote:
> And I still don't see how the DH plotline goes nowhere--seems to me
that it works nicely into the rest of the series.
> 
CJ responded:
> "Works nicely into" and "contributes meaningfully" are horses of an
 entirely different color. The whole DH plotline goes nowhere because
it makes no meaningful contribution to the advancement of the main
plot,  which ultimately does turn out exactly as we were led to
expect: the  destruction of the horcruxes and a final Harry/LV
showdown. And to  *that*, the Hallows contributed in no meaningful
way; red herrings, by any other name.

Carol notes:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think that the two of you are using the
term 'DH plotline" differently. Lynda seems to be using it to mean the
plot (both main plot and subplots) of the book "Deathly Hallows,"
whereas CJ seems to be using it to mean only the Deathly Hallows
*subplot* of DH, which he thinks interferes with the Horcrux hunt
(main plot) and other crucial elements of the story. My apologies if
I've misinterpreted either argument!

Carol, who has already expressed her own views in another post and
doesn't want to repeat them.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 27 17:21:46 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:21:46 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3s1b2+t0ll@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g437ja+8kj6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183479

Pippin wrote:
> <snip> Do you  think Snape would have been better off Sorted into
another House? Do you think he'd have been accepted there despite his
neediness and his grinding sense of inferiority? <snip>

Carol responds:

What "grinding sense of inferiority"? Little Severus firmly expects to
be Sorted into Slytherin, the House for "brains" (evidently his mother
has misled him somewhat), he already knows more "curses" (presumably
hexes and jinxes) than most kids six years older than he is (unless
Sirius Black is lying or mistaken, and I don't see why he should be),
and he seems confident that a Hogwarts education will insure him
success in the WW: "[E]ven with his poorly cut hair and his odd
clothes [little Severus] struck an oddly impressive figure sprawled in
front of [Lily], brimful of confidence in his destiny" (DH Am. ed. 666).

Carol, who finds that passage brimful of pathos and tragic irony





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Fri Jun 27 18:52:04 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:52:04 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Deaths affecting Harry
References: <g42upn+es9j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009b01c8d886$e66030a0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 183480

>I have a question?
> Out of all the deaths that Harry saw and heard about, other than his
> parents and Sirius, which do you think he was saddest about
> I think it was DD, lupin, Fred and Dobby. I can't chose out of those 4
> I think that he considersd DD as a surrogate Father, Lupin as a trusted
> friend and someone unbiased to give him advice , Fred as a surrogate
> brother and of course Dobby as a friend even though he was an elf
>
> Jayne
> Starting a thread for once


Pretty much- "saddest" is a very personal definition. Saddest for me are the 
useless ones. Dolby's death, while bringing tears to my face, wasn't sad in 
that he died heroically, and with purpose. It was noble- it was fitting. The 
same was true with Mad-Eye- he died while doing a job that he knew the risks 
for- he died protecting Harry, and he wouldn't have wanted it any other way. 
Dumbledore was at the end of his life- we knew he was cursed, and we knew 
that he had to die somehow. The totally outrageous part for me was that act 
by Snape that I didn't see coming, and thus when I read it the first time, I 
literally threw my brand new book against the wall in rage. So, I can't 
really remember Dumbledore's death without feeling the anger of Snape's act.

So, the most sad death for me is Hedwig. She dies caged up, helpless, and 
her death is totally meaningless. We see her tired of being caged up, and 
Harry belittling the fact that she's impatient to be free again. She didn't 
even have the ability to duck and dodge, to flee or try and save herself. 
For Rowling to carry on the theme of "Harry must grow up" and "Harry must go 
on alone" to include Hedwig just strikes me as cruelty to the readers in the 
worst way. I would have to second Hedwig's death with Tonks and Lupin. Ok, 
kill off Lupin to show how ugly the battle got, but why both Lupin and 
Tonks? That seems to me to be going overboard with the killing, to leave 
poor Teddy as an orphan. Since it's the end of the series, we never really 
get to see why Teddy needs to be an orphan, and so those deaths strike me as 
sad. Also, Fred- why just after the family reunited? I know she planned to 
"off" a Weasley all along, but it almost strikes me that the more meaningful 
death would have been Mr. Weasley earlier in the series when she gave him a 
reprieve, as his death then would have demonstrated that NO FAMILY was safe 
from Voldemort. It would have fueled Harry's desire, even further, to find 
an end to the madness, and put Ron's pain to be equal with Harry's, so that 
they had a common bond of losing a parent to Voldemort. I think Mr. 
Weasley's death would have given that "we are all in mortal peril" message a 
clear forefront, rather than just have the kids reading it from a newspaper 
or hearing from friends that they all were in danger. Although, not killing 
Mr. Weasley earlier did serve to allow him to help Harry get ready for the 
DH's journey, and gave Harry that one adult who supported his efforts 
without having to know all the details. In that, Harry owed Mr. Weasley a 
debt.

Shelley 




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Jun 27 19:49:36 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:49:36 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/Ron's Cloak/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g40sva+nn41@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g43g8g+h76m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183481

-- 
> Magpie:
> No it wouldn't. Dumbledore was in the most powerful position there 
> was as Headmaster of Hogwarts. In the center of the action and 
> overseeing Harry Potter. He didn't want to be MoM for his own 
> reasons, not because he just couldn't leave his students. (Even 
> Voldemort took over the Ministry as his second choice.)
> 

Pippin:
I meant when Riddle resurfaced as Voldemort, Dumbledore says that
Riddle doesn't really intend to base himself at Hogwarts. He must be
right, because if Voldemort had  wanted to infiltrate Hogwarts and
take it over, he could have. Dumbledore's stated reason for not
wanting the MoM at that time wasn't that it would be a weaker
position, quite the reverse. He was afraid of having that much power. 

I wonder, is this something that  people who want to identify with
Slytherin don't get? They just don't believe that anyone is capable of
turning down power unless they expect to get more power by doing it?

Magpie: 
demonstrate the lesson "save  people even if they don't deserve it"
by showing that maybe they do  deserve it--so stop thinking of them
that way. 

Pippin:

Judge not, lest ye misjudge? 

To borrow an argument I've heard somewhere, that doesn't seem to be
the lesson in canon. People misjudge each other from one end of the
series to the other, and as long as it's understood to be an honest
mistake, even a mistake made through fear or jealousy or prejudice,
that's okay. You're forgiven. 

Lupin  struggles with it, but even he never says anything like,  "If
you really were my friend, you wouldn't have thought it of me." If
there's one place where everyone's friends are too good to be true,
that's it. 

And of course the people who want to hurt don't mind being misjudged
one bit -- if their victims think they're eeeevil, it's a compliment,
and if they mistakenly think they've got friends -- well!! 

Generally, judging character is treated like predicting the future:
it's difficult, few humans can honestly claim to be good at it,  and
people should not blame themselves too much if they make a mistake. No
wonder  they rely so much on the Hat!

So, no, I don't think Dumbledore is much afraid that he'll misjudge
others. He forgives himself very easily for that, even when the
consequences have been horrendous *cough*Sirius*cough*. 

It's not, "lest ye make a mess of it." 

It's *lest ye be judged.* 

For the longest time I couldn't see where JKR was going with
Dumbledore's fear of Grindelwald but I get it now.  Dumbledore was
was afraid of facing the true judgment that he had struck his sister
down, and that's his motivation on the tower. 

 It's not about giving Draco a chance to become a better person, or
about the possibility that he already is a better person, though he's
a better person than Harry thought.  It's about Dumbledore
knowing how terrible it is to be judged. He's forgotten -- as he shows
 by judging the Dursleys -- but he's reminded when he faces the
terrible justice of the potion in the cave. 

(Side note: I couldn't see why DD thought he'd  get the truth from
Grindelwald, but if Grindelwald had the pensieve, it would make sense.
Is that one of the things that JKR assumed we'd understand, or did she
leave it mysterious so we'd have to think about it?)


> Pippin:
> With the Slytherins,  JKR is more interested in the ways that
> > decent people can be persuaded to ignore that message. One of them 
> isto slant everything that they hear about a certain group towards
> > making them think that group is both scary and inferior. IMO,
> > Slytherin is her thought experiment for that. 
> 
> Magpie:
> Is the "thought experiment" the Slytherins? Because Slytherins are 
> scary and inferior. That's canon. 

Pippin:
What's scary and inferior about Malcolm Baddock? Did he ever do
anything to show he deserved to be applauded by Draco or hissed by
Fred and George? Graham Pritchard doesn't even have a funny name,
unless I'm missing something. You can't  say they should have
joined the DA or fought for Hogwarts. They were too young. 

And there's Andromeda, who has to be older than Narcissa, who has to
be older than Sirius, and so must have been Sorted to Slytherin. 
I concede anyone's right to doubt JKR's maths, but that's the  canon
we have. 

Magpie:
What's the trick of creating a group of fictional people 
> who are always one way and winding up with the audience associating 
> them with those traits?

Pippin:
The trick is that we're manipulated to associate  wrong things with
Slytherins, but we also get very strongly that guilt by association is
wrong. So we're shown that even if we want to fight it, it's almost
impossible. It's like prejudice is a form of original sin.

Magpie:
 It actually 
> feels to me sometimes like none of these characters fully taking the 
> opportunity for redemption offered was important from the get go in 
> the series. The appeal is partly in their remaining safely awful and 
> forgiven for it. 

Pippin:
I actually agree with this. 

But it applies to all the characters. It seems partly to be about the
idea that we all waste some of the time that is given to us, that if
we truly understood that every moment of life was precious we wouldn't
waste a moment of it on anger and recrimination and useless regret.
And that every moment we could be making redemptive choices, but we don't.

But it's also about the idea that there are people in the world who
have the courage  to make sacrifices for others. That we need these
people because few of us are good enough to merit redemption on our
own.  It's definitely not about becoming so noble that no one needs to
give up anything for your sake. People do give up things to help Harry
and Dumbledore, including Slughorn and Snape. 

Narcissa takes a terrible risk to help Harry at the end. Granted she's
doing it out of familial love rather than agape, but all of Harry's
selfless love would have been in vain without her help. 
 

Pippin





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Jun 27 20:39:41 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:39:41 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g437ja+8kj6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g43j6d+niv4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183482

> Carol responds:
> 
> What "grinding sense of inferiority"? Little Severus firmly expects
to be Sorted into Slytherin, the House for "brains" (evidently his
mother has misled him somewhat), he already knows more "curses"
(presumably hexes and jinxes) than most kids six years older than he
is (unless Sirius Black is lying or mistaken, and I don't see why he
should be), and he seems confident that a Hogwarts education will
insure him success in the WW: "[E]ven with his poorly cut hair and his
odd clothes [little Severus] struck an oddly impressive figure
sprawled in front of [Lily], brimful of confidence in his destiny" (DH
Am. ed. 666).

Pippin:
That's just what I mean. Of course  Muggles think he's creepy, but Sev
doesn't care about them. Once he arrives in his proper place and his
proper house, he thinks he'll be accepted. His poor looks, his mixed
blood, his poverty and the effects of the neglect he's experienced all
his life, they won't be able to hold him back anymore. But they do.
Malfoy pats him on the back and James and Sirius shun him, but nobody
sees him as an equal except Lily. And that doesn't last. 

Sev is still treated like a creep, the only people who accept him are
creeps, and now he can't blame it on being a wizard.  He gets mascot
status from the older purebloods, but once his protectors are gone
things seem to be worse than ever. I mean, really, why shouldn't he
have become a DE, when everyone was determined to treat him like one
anyway?

Pippin




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 27 21:54:58 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:54:58 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
In-Reply-To: <g42oej+oqfi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g43nji+dhd6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183483

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jayne" <jaynesmith62 at ...> wrote:

> > zanooda:
 
> > I only started considering Abe something like one page earlier 
> > than Harry saw the mirror on his fireplace :-).
 

> Gosh so was I. I had no idea until Harry met Abe in Hogwarts when he 
> saved them from Death Eaters. Alot of things only hit me when they 
> actual happened, not before.
 
> Sign of old age I think (vbg)


No, Jayne, of course it's not a sign of old age, LOL - although I am no 
spring chicken myself! You probably just read like I do - if the book 
is interesting to me, I rush to the end with an incredible speed :-). 
I'm so eager to find out how it ends, that I jump through pages and 
sometimes even have a peek at the last page (shame on me!). 

Of course I don't have time to stop and think, so I can't guess many 
things that later, on the second, careful read, seem obvious :-). DH 
interested me, naturally, so I rushed through it without much thinking 
or analyzing, and so did you, I guess :-). To return to HP - if not 
Aberforth's, whose eye did you think it was :-)?


zanooda, who was totally at a loss about the eye ...





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 27 22:22:58 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:22:58 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
In-Reply-To: <002f01c8d85b$541a1c40$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>
Message-ID: <g43p82+a78q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183484

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jerri/Dan Chase" 
<danjerri at ...> wrote:

> > 1) What did you think of Harry's story, that he is a Slytherin
> > named Vernon Dudley whose father works at the Ministry?
 
> I was reminded of the time in PoA when Harry said he was Neville 
> Longbottom, when he thought the MoM was after him for blowing up 
> Aunt Marge.


zanooda:

It wasn't funny the first time I read it, as the whole situation was 
so horrible, but later I found "Vernon Dudley" rather amusing, 
because Harry is trying here to invent a new personality for himself, 
and surely this new personality better be as far from Muggles as 
possible, but the only names that come to Harry's mind are his Muggle 
relatives' names :-).



> Jerri wrote:

> > 6) Did you learn anything knew about/form any new opinions of
> > Bellatrix in this chapter?
 
> Up until this chapter I wasn't sure how much Bellatrix knew about 
> the horcrux's.  I assume from this chapter that she at least knew 
> about the Cup, having been given the job of keeping it safe in her 
> Gringotts vault.


zanooda:

I'm not sure I agree with you. Harry believed that Bella didn't know 
*what* the Cup was, just like Lucius didn't know what the Diary 
was: "I don't think he'd have told Bellatrix it was a Horcrux, 
though. He never told Lucius Malfoy the truth about the diary. He 
probably told her it was a treasured possession and asked her to 
place it in her vault" (p.491 Am.ed.). Of course it's just Harry's 
opinion, but I tend to agree with him :-). I think LV wouldn't trust 
anyone, even Bella, with the knowledge of his preciousss Horcruxes. 
JMO.  







From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 27 22:30:43 2008
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:30:43 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
In-Reply-To: <g3uucb+gink@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g43pmj+gavl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183485

 
> Discussion Questions:
> 1) What did you think of Harry's story, that he is a Slytherin 
> named Vernon Dudley whose father works at the Ministry?

Beatrice:  I thought that the whole "Vernon Dudley" thing was a 
pretty lame lie although understandable given the circumstances.  
Although, it was fantastic how he came up with the details of the 
Slytherin Common Room.
> 
> 2) Greyback takes the party to Malfoy Manor rather than 
> summoning Voldemort himself. Harry surmises this is because 
Greyback 
> is not a marked Death Eater. What do you think? 

Beatrice: I don't think that Greybeck has/had a dark mark.  I doubt 
that Voldemort would bestow such an "honor" on someone who isn't 
considered to have pure blood.  And a werewolf, while useful, would 
never be deemed worthy.
> 
> 3) Narcissa Malfoy seems to have some authority: Greyback and 
> his men defer to her, and she decides to let them in. What is her 
> status, do you think? Which events of this chapter helped to form 
> that opinion?
> 
Beatrice: She is very high up in the ranks of Death Eaters.  She is 
sadistic and twisted just like her master.  I wondered about her 
status after the Spinner;s End Chapter in HBP, but the way she 
ordered everyone about and took the lead in torturing Hermione 
leaves me with little doubt that she is trusted and valued highly by 
LV.

> 4) What did you think of Draco in the scene where he is asked to 
> identify Harry?
> 
Beatrice:  I have never been a fan of Draco and never really rooted 
for him to come over to the good side.  But I hoped that maybe his 
reluctance signaled that he was thinking about it.  I felt rather 
sorry for him.  He seemed to be pretty abused and defeated both here 
and in the "Dark Lord Ascending" Chapter, but his behavior later on 
is too telling of his real nature and his goals.

> 5) Lucius, Bella, and Greyback all argue over who should get 
> what credit for the capture. What does each hope to gain?

Lucius: Redemption and maybe some peace for his family.  Bella: 
Sex? - Definitely status.  Greybeck : $$$$$ and an outlet for his 
perversions.
> 
> 6) Did you learn anything knew about/form any new opinions of 
> Bellatrix in this chapter?

Beatrice: Not really, but it was interesting to see her act in a 
cautious manner as she has seemed so out of control and implusive in 
previous encounters.  Interesting also to see her so masterful and 
in control.
> 
> 7) What did you think prompted Bella's extreme fear when she 
> believed the Sword of Gryffindor was stolen from her vault?

Beatrice:  Well, when she asked what else had been stolen, I figured 
that she had been given a horcrux - Actually, I thought that she had 
one from the Spinner's End chapter when she almost let it slip.  I 
also thought that a horcrux was in Gringotts - for the same reason 
Harry states later.
> 
> 8) What did you think was the explanation for Dumbledore's eye 
> in the broken mirror?

Beatrice:  I really didn't put this together - I thought it might be 
Snape for a second, because I was a DMD Snape believer - but I knew 
that Snape had Brown/black eyes.
> 
> 9) "May your loyalty never waver again", Voldemort said to Peter 
> after giving him the silver hand in GoF. Now we know what he 
meant. 
> What did you think of Peter's death? Did you like or dislike the 
way 
> it ended his story? Do you see any special meaning in it?

Beatrice:  His death was fitting - although I was expecting 
something a little more, ummm I don't know painful? dramatic?  But 
in retrospect it is fitting - He should die by his own hand 
betraying him as he betrayed the Potters
> 
> 10) Do you think, when Peter let Harry go, he experienced a 
> sincere regret for his past actions? Why or why not?

Beatrice:  Regret?  No.  I simply think that he is a coward.  He 
doesn't have conviction in any loyalty so the hesitation simply 
betrays the fact that he is always looking for how circumstances 
might benefit himself...he hesitates because he is thinking about 
it...
> 
> 11) Why do you think Griphook lied to Bella?

Beatrice:  Isn't this in part to save himself?  Isn't Griphook the 
goblin who originally authenticated the sword when it went into 
Gringotts?  Wouldn't that be a fine pickle...
> 
> 12) What did you think was going on with Voldemort in this 
> chapter? What ideas did you have concerning the identity of the 
old 
> man in the tower?

Beatrice: I was pretty sure that it was Grindelwald...but I was 
shocked that he was still alive.  Somehow I figured defeated meant 
dead...just goes to show me.  And shows Dumbledore's greatness too, 
that he defeated him without killing him and wounding his soul.  I 
thought that maybe there might be a way out for Harry...
> 
> 13) Can someone explain to me why Dobby's death is the one death 
> in this book that originally did, and still does, move me to 
tears, 
> even though I always found him annoying? 

Beatrice:  Dobby is annoying - but I liked him better in GoF, OotP, 
and HBP.  I think that his death is so moving because again it is an 
obvious sacrifice to save Harry and it hits Harry terribly.  Also In 
Dobby's death there is a sense of all the deaths that have gone 
before and are still to come.  
> 
> --Zara
> 
> NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please 
see
> "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database
>





From sweenlit at gmail.com  Fri Jun 27 23:30:54 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:30:54 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron/cloak question
In-Reply-To: <48640489.2000006@yahoo.com>
References: <1214467719.3139.28514.m54@yahoogroups.com>
	 <007801c8d7a9$3c9a5010$2a7deacd@YOUR37E34C38B1>
	 <48640489.2000006@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806271630n1b3d2b2br55a2a880fd47b7cd@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183486

Lynda:

it might partially be CJ, but I knew from the outset of the series, after
Harry received the cloak, that is, that it was special If it had not been,
it would not have been kept for him by Dumbledore to be returned to him
after he entered the Wizarding World. That was how I knew it was
significant. It never occurred to me that Dumbledore just happened to be
return a piece of fabric with an invisibility charm on it. I knew it was
significant from the outset.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Sat Jun 28 00:04:14 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:04:14 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Are we being too critical? (was: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue))
In-Reply-To: <g41ol0+b1h6@eGroups.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806262034m609c1f31rb9fcafa13f91e463@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g41ol0+b1h6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806271704o4a8b8815i99f015763e7bf26@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183487

Alla:
We are talking about books here, right? Not about readers.

Lynda:
We are talking about books, not readers. Let's try to differentiate a little
further. I have a good friend who refuses to go to any of Shakespeare's
plays because she has a problem with the way he lived his life. To her that
negates any great poetry/playwriting he did, although she recognizes he had
great talent. I, myself recognize her arguments but continue to enjoy his
works regardless of the man himself. And what I was sensing from some people
(perhaps incorrectly) was more of a personal "I don't like the way this was
done" than a critical "it would have been better done if. . ." that has a
less personal level of criticism about it. It may be the way I was trained
that taught me to take nearly all personality out of critical works. (On
pain of receiving low or no marks--I saw people have work returned to them
ungraded with a note to redo it),

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun 28 01:10:43 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:10:43 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/Ron's Cloak/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g43g8g+h76m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g4432j+kisj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183489

*fell on the send button too soon*

> Lynda:
>
> it might partially be CJ, but I knew from the outset of the series,
after
> Harry received the cloak, that is, that it was special If it had
not been,
> it would not have been kept for him by Dumbledore to be returned to
him
> after he entered the Wizarding World. That was how I knew it was
> significant. It never occurred to me that Dumbledore just happened
to be
> return a piece of fabric with an invisibility charm on it. I knew
it was
> significant from the outset.

Magpie:
That doesn't make it a plot hole if it doesn't turn out to be a
Deathly Hallow. Lots of people thought things were significant in 
that way that turned out not to be. It's not more of a clue than 
Neville's gum wrappers or the locked room in the MoM. You're not 
really describing any sort of clue, you're just saying you thought it 
should be special. It didn't need to be special just because it 
belonged to James and Dumbledore gave it back to Harry. 

Lynda:
And what I was sensing from some people
(perhaps incorrectly) was more of a personal "I don't like the way
this was
done" than a critical "it would have been better done if. . ." that
has a
less personal level of criticism about it. It may be the way I was
trained
that taught me to take nearly all personality out of critical works.
(On
pain of receiving low or no marks--I saw people have work returned to
them
ungraded with a note to redo it),

Magpie:
I don't exactly see the difference between the two. What's wrong
with "I don't like the way this was done?" My instict is even to have
more problem with "It would have been better done if..." That to me
sounds even more like bringing one's own personality into it. 

I mean, liking a story more than somebody else doesn't necessarily
mean you're being less personal. I was taught the same thing and need 
to try to do that in my job because the point is to figure out what 
the writer is trying to say and help them say it, no matter what I 
would prefer they say. Or else looking at a story and figuring out 
the best way to tell a story for whatever I'm writing for, even if 
I'd prefer to tell it a different way.

In reading a book on my own I think I try to do both. If I have a
strong personal reaction, I try to figure out what bothered me about
it and say so--that will usually mean looking at what the story
itself seems to be doing. I can't completely take my own personality
out of it. Nobody can. If we're talking about JKR's personality, the
only part of it that matters imo is what she wrote on the page. Her
personality is going to come into the story everywhere, but as
readers we can't necessarily say how. Two people can both analyze the 
story the same way but have two different reactions to it.

Pippin:
I meant when Riddle resurfaced as Voldemort, Dumbledore says that
Riddle doesn't really intend to base himself at Hogwarts. He must be
right, because if Voldemort had wanted to infiltrate Hogwarts and
take it over, he could have. Dumbledore's stated reason for not
wanting the MoM at that time wasn't that it would be a weaker
position, quite the reverse. He was afraid of having that much power.

Magpie:
Yes, that's Dumbledore's own reason for not wanting to be MoM. It's
not that he wants to be but doesn't feel like he can leave the kids.
Regardless of what Voldemort is planning to do the second time,
Dumbledore's still the one mostly controlling Harry, and that gives
him the most power. 

Pippin:
I wonder, is this something that people who want to identify with
Slytherin don't get? They just don't believe that anyone is capable of
turning down power unless they expect to get more power by doing it?

Magpie
I don't want to identify with Slytherin so I can't speak for them, 
but I'm not sure I'm getting what you mean here. I absolutely believe 
one can turn down power without expecting to get more power by doing 
it. My own personailty is to not like much power anyway. But that 
doesn't change the fact that Dumbledore's best position for running 
his battle against Voldemort is exactly where he is, at Hogwarts. 
Right next to Harry Potter. Not at the Ministry. His whole plan 
centers on Harry. Throughout the books the Ministers are worried 
about Dumbledore's power, not vice versa.

Pippin:
What's scary and inferior about Malcolm Baddock? Did he ever do
anything to show he deserved to be applauded by Draco or hissed by
Fred and George? Graham Pritchard doesn't even have a funny name,
unless I'm missing something. You can't say they should have
joined the DA or fought for Hogwarts. They were too young.

Magpie:
He's part of that mean house that's so overly associated with
inferiority of character, obviously. It's a work of fiction and this
is a fictional group of people associated with certain
characteristics. I don't need to know all of them to get that much. 
I'm not accusing Malcolm of any particular thing. It just seems 
absurd to read all those thousands of pages and say, "But why would 
you assume anything negative about a character because he was in 
Slytherin?" 

Pippin:
And there's Andromeda, who has to be older than Narcissa, who has to
be older than Sirius, and so must have been Sorted to Slytherin.
I concede anyone's right to doubt JKR's maths, but that's the canon
we have.

Magpie:
"Must have been" Sorted but she never appears as one, and we barely
know her. Perhaps her love for one Ted Tonks helped her overcame the 
worst of the things in her that caused her to be Sorted into 
Slytherin while probably retaining some since that's what we've seen 
with others. That's not much canon for Andromeda the awesome 
Slytherin. 

> Pippin:
> The trick is that we're manipulated to associate  wrong things with
> Slytherins, but we also get very strongly that guilt by association 
is
> wrong. So we're shown that even if we want to fight it, it's almost
> impossible. It's like prejudice is a form of original sin.

Magpie:
I don't see much about a lesson against guilt by association with 
Slytherin. Being prejudiced against Wizards who have the blood of 
some other type in them is wrong. I don't see how that applies to 
accepting the information the author always gives us about a 
fictional group she's made up. They're not all as bad as Draco & Co., 
but Slytherin has still earned the reputation it has as a bad house. 
It's not like this isn't something that's even come up in interviews, 
and I don't think the author's ever warned anybody about guilt by 
association with Slytherin. Seems to me she more acknowledges the 
logical distrust of the house, laughs and says they keep them around 
in the hope they'll change. Even she's apparently had to think out 
why they're still allowed. It's not like we all assume they're actual 
DEs or can't ever do anything good--we've seen that they can. But who 
could not get that Slytherin is the bad house? The best ones are the 
ones we don't have to know.

 
> Magpie:
>  It actually 
> > feels to me sometimes like none of these characters fully taking 
the 
> > opportunity for redemption offered was important from the get go 
in 
> > the series. The appeal is partly in their remaining safely awful 
and 
> > forgiven for it. 
> 
> Pippin:
> I actually agree with this. 
> 
> But it applies to all the characters. It seems partly to be about 
the
> idea that we all waste some of the time that is given to us, that if
> we truly understood that every moment of life was precious we 
wouldn't
> waste a moment of it on anger and recrimination and useless regret.
> And that every moment we could be making redemptive choices, but we 
don't.

Magpie:
I think the author might agree with that. But I don't get that she's 
making this point with the good characters, that they're all missing 
their chance. I think she thinks most of the good guys are awesome 
the way they are. Not perfect, but they've making the most of their 
life in the way you describe. Some of them have made these mistakes, 
but I still think there's a difference between them and the Slytherin 
problems.

-m




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Sat Jun 28 05:29:08 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:29:08 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron/cloak question
In-Reply-To: <g4419k+eopd@eGroups.com>
References: <43e41d1e0806271630n1b3d2b2br55a2a880fd47b7cd@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g4419k+eopd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806272229racd2184hfe06aad26a850607@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183490

Magpie:
That doesn't make it a plot hole if it doesn't turn out to be a
Deathly Hallow

Lynda:
No, it doesn't. I never considered it to be one, though and still don't. Of
course some people like a series more than others, and expressing that is a
necessary thing. As we are removed by time from our initial reactions to the
series as a whole, I am starting to see, now some changes in the postings,
which I think is a good thing.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 28 06:22:52 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:22:52 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/Ron's Cloak/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g4432j+kisj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g44lbs+hgk6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183491

> Lynda:
> And what I was sensing from some people
> (perhaps incorrectly) was more of a personal "I don't like the way
> this was
> done" than a critical "it would have been better done if. . ." that
> has a
> less personal level of criticism about it. It may be the way I was
> trained
> that taught me to take nearly all personality out of critical works.
> (On
> pain of receiving low or no marks--I saw people have work returned to
> them
> ungraded with a note to redo it),
> 
> Magpie:
> I don't exactly see the difference between the two. What's wrong
> with "I don't like the way this was done?" My instict is even to have
> more problem with "It would have been better done if..." That to me
> sounds even more like bringing one's own personality into it. 
> 
> I mean, liking a story more than somebody else doesn't necessarily
> mean you're being less personal. I was taught the same thing and need 
> to try to do that in my job because the point is to figure out what 
> the writer is trying to say and help them say it, no matter what I 
> would prefer they say. Or else looking at a story and figuring out 
> the best way to tell a story for whatever I'm writing for, even if 
> I'd prefer to tell it a different way.
> 
> In reading a book on my own I think I try to do both. If I have a
> strong personal reaction, I try to figure out what bothered me about
> it and say so--that will usually mean looking at what the story
> itself seems to be doing. I can't completely take my own personality
> out of it. Nobody can. If we're talking about JKR's personality, the
> only part of it that matters imo is what she wrote on the page. Her
> personality is going to come into the story everywhere, but as
> readers we can't necessarily say how. Two people can both analyze the 
> story the same way but have two different reactions to it.

Montavilla47:
I think there are at least two ways of being "disapppointed" (my word
of the day) in a book.  You can be upset that the author's purpose was 
different than you thought.  

You can be also be disappointed that the author didn't fully deliver on 
her purpose.  

As an example, let's take the House Elves.  Because she ends the series 
with her hero perfectly happy owning a slave, I tend to  think JKR confused 
her "slavery is bad" message, and that the real message ended up being, 
"slavery is only bad if you abuse your authority as a slave owner."

Now, it's possible that she was headed toward the second message all
along.  It's certainly a valid (if rather repugnant) idea. In that case,
I was mistaken about where she was going with the slaves story arc.

Or it's possible that she thought she'd done enough conveying the horrors
of slavery and didn't realize that having her hero keep a slave would
undermine her larger message.

Either way, I didn't like how it all shook out.  But even I'm not entirely
sure if I'm more unhappy about the message or the confusion of the
message.

But, if I rag on the slaves story, it's mainly because it's the easiest to
explain.  It's not like I'm sitting here weeping over the House Elves.

What disturbs me most is that I thought the story was headed toward
a realization that--what was it that Anne Frank said?  That people are 
basically *good.*  

That the Power of Love is that it blesses those it touches.  That it can
redeem the sinner and forgive the unforgivable.  That people, if not
*good,* are at least usually better than you think they are.

But, I don't think JKR was headed there at all.  And, instead of getting
better, almost all the characters got considerably worse.  James, Sirius,
Lily, and Lupin all became less impressive by the end of the book.   
Dumbledore went from being beloved mentor to looking as manipulative
and arrogant as Voldemort.

Snape may have risen in the eyes of many fans.  Since I was firmly 
in the Good!Snape camp, he rose in my eyes only because I found out
how much harder and lonelier his road was than I thought.  At the
same time, I was disappointed at the overt reading that his actions 
due *only* to his love for Lily--and that he basically never grew beyond 
that.  It made him very weak as a character, and the one thing Snape
had never been before DH was weak.

Now, to end on a positive note, there was one character who did
grow stronger in this book--and it was a complete success on JKR's
part.  I'm talking about Neville Longbottom.  His growth into a true
hero was both surprising and logical, given everything he did
throughout the series.

I'm not saying that everyone needed to be Neville Longbottom for
me to be satisfied with the book.  I just didn't want to end up
disliking as many characters as I did.

Montavilla47
Who, incidentally, is female.








From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sat Jun 28 15:04:54 2008
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:04:54 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/ Draco/Are we being too critical?
In-Reply-To: <g431bn+4cpp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g45jum+6abv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183492

Magpie:
> And real redemption (not redemption meaning buying themselves off 
> through penance or managing to love somebody somewhere)is not what
> it's about. We don't have to respect Draco--or even Snape--the way
> we respect good guys. That's partly, I think, why people keep 
> coming up with the Calvinism idea. And why JKR would even be asked,
> after the books were over, whether Snape could be considered a hero-
> -which she says he is, but with obvious qualifications.  

Jen: She also called her epitome of goodnes 'Machiavellian'! That 
particular interview comment encapsulated JKR's expectations for 
readers of DH: 

"Although [Dumbledore] seems to be so benign for six books, he's 
quite a Machiavellian figure, really. He's been pulling a lot of 
strings. Harry has been his puppet," she explained. "When Snape says 
to Dumbledore [toward the end of 'Hallows'], 'We've been protecting 
[Harry] so he could die at the right moment' ? I don't think in book 
one you would have ever envisioned a moment where your sympathy would 
be with Snape rather than Dumbledore." (Shawn Adler, MTV, 2007)

I know you're talking within the story though.  For a reader like me, 
whose sympathy for & belief in Dumbledore were surpassed only by 
mistrust of Snape, JKR was right that Dumbledore came off as 
Machiavellian and Snape as the righteous one, particulaly in the 
Pensieve memories.  And when Harry believes that Dumbledore betrayed 
him & identifies with Snape & Riddle as 'abandoned boys', that 
signifies a change in Harry's perceptions.

In the end though, I agree the story wasn't about redemption as much 
as it was about truth & lies, and how characters acted in the face of 
a truth previously hidden to them.  For Regulus, Snape & the Malfoys 
(Narcissa mainly), when the truth was revealed they chose to betray 
Voldemort.  In that way JKR delivered on her theme of choice, how 
one's actions can make all the difference.  

Montavilla:
> But, I don't think JKR was headed there at all.  And, instead of
> getting better, almost all the characters got considerably worse. 
> James, Sirius, Lily, and Lupin all became less impressive by the
> end of the book.  Dumbledore went from being beloved mentor to
> looking as manipulative and arrogant as Voldemort.

Jen: JKR sacrifices her adult characters for the children.  Her 
chosen epigraph announced the trend would continue: "Bless the 
children, give them triumph now." (Aeschylus)  It's why I expected 
something different with Draco's story & the younger generation of 
students, that they would heal the rifts started during Voldemort's 
first rise to power.  Instead JKR was primarily interested in only 
three children, how the Trio would save the day, and all the other 
characters were shuffled off-stage and shuffled back on when the Trio 
needed help at a critical moment.  




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 28 15:37:42 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:37:42 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
In-Reply-To: <g3uucb+gink@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g45ls6+mo9p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183493

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" <zgirnius at ...> wrote:
<SNIP of the summary>
> Discussion Questions:
> 1) What did you think of Harry's story, that he is a Slytherin 
> named Vernon Dudley whose father works at the Ministry?

Alla:

I thought it showed perfectly what Harry thinks of his uncle :)

 
> 2) Greyback takes the party to Malfoy Manor rather than 
> summoning Voldemort himself. Harry surmises this is because 
Greyback 
> is not a marked Death Eater. What do you think? 

Alla:

Right, I think I agree that Greyback feels Voldemort's underlying 
contempt for werewolves, even if said werewolves are on his side and 
commit montrocities. In short I agree with Harry here.


> 
> 3) Narcissa Malfoy seems to have some authority: Greyback and 
> his men defer to her, and she decides to let them in. What is her 
> status, do you think? Which events of this chapter helped to form 
> that opinion?

Alla:

What is her status among DE or in Malfoy hosehold? I mean, it is 
clear to me since the first chapter that Lucius and Draco do what 
Narcissa says and Lucius does not have much influence anymore, I 
guess in this chapter we do see that she is influential among other 
DE as well. Are you asking if we think she has a mark as well?

Um, I am tempted to say yes, but I will answer no, only because 
Narcissa would probably not want to put that ugly  mark on her 
beatiful skin, hehe.


> 4) What did you think of Draco in the scene where he is asked to 
> identify Harry?


Alla:

That he does not want to do bad thing, but is too undecisive to do 
the right thing. And the right thing as far as I am concerned would 
be to say no, not them. But at least he did not say it is them.

 
> 5) Lucius, Bella, and Greyback all argue over who should get 
> what credit for the capture. What does each hope to gain?


Alla:

I would be very interested in hearing your answer, actually. Are you 
saying that you thought they all had different goals to gain? I 
thought they all wanted same thing to increase their status in 
Voldemort's eyes.

 
> 6) Did you learn anything knew about/form any new opinions of 
> Bellatrix in this chapter?

Alla:

Nope, it just solidified my opinion that she is smart and crazy and 
should be locked up forever.


> 7) What did you think prompted Bella's extreme fear when she 
> believed the Sword of Gryffindor was stolen from her vault?

Alla:

I want to know what you think here too :) I suspect that I am missing 
something, but I did not see anything except her not wanting 
Voldemort to be angry with her.

 
> 8) What did you think was the explanation for Dumbledore's eye 
> in the broken mirror?

Alla:

First reaction, if I am not mistaken, hard to remember was that Harry 
is halucinating, I certainly did not think that it was Aberworth.

 
> 9) "May your loyalty never waver again", Voldemort said to Peter 
> after giving him the silver hand in GoF. Now we know what he meant. 
> What did you think of Peter's death? Did you like or dislike the 
way 
> it ended his story? Do you see any special meaning in it?

Alla:

Hmmmm, I was pretty sure that he would die trying to pay off his debt 
in a sense. I thought ending was very appropriate.


> 10) Do you think, when Peter let Harry go, he experienced a 
> sincere regret for his past actions? Why or why not?

Alla:

A little guilt for what he did to Harry? Maybe, hence the hesitation. 
Sincere regret for all the death and pain he caused, personally doubt 
it. 

 
> 11) Why do you think Griphook lied to Bella?

Alla:

Because he does not like DE much either?
 
> 12) What did you think was going on with Voldemort in this 
> chapter? What ideas did you have concerning the identity of the old 
> man in the tower?

Alla:

None, but I was so upset when he died. Wierd, eh? I never met this 
man before and JKR made me feel sorry right away.

 
> 13) Can someone explain to me why Dobby's death is the one death 
> in this book that originally did, and still does, move me to tears, 
> even though I always found him annoying? 
> 
> 

Alla:

Heee, here I can only second your question. I had the same feeling. I 
was mostly annoyed by Dobby through the book, but I cried as well 
here.

Thank you, excellent questions :)




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 28 16:33:20 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:33:20 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/ Draco/Are we being too critical?
In-Reply-To: <g45jum+6abv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g45p4g+qqmj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183494

Jen:
> In the end though, I agree the story wasn't about redemption as much 
> as it was about truth & lies, and how characters acted in the face of 
> a truth previously hidden to them.  For Regulus, Snape & the Malfoys 
> (Narcissa mainly), when the truth was revealed they chose to betray 
> Voldemort.  In that way JKR delivered on her theme of choice, how 
> one's actions can make all the difference.

Montavilla47:
That's a very good reading, Jen.  

 
> Montavilla:
> > But, I don't think JKR was headed there at all.  And, instead of
> > getting better, almost all the characters got considerably worse. 
> > James, Sirius, Lily, and Lupin all became less impressive by the
> > end of the book.  Dumbledore went from being beloved mentor to
> > looking as manipulative and arrogant as Voldemort.
> 
> Jen: JKR sacrifices her adult characters for the children.  Her 
> chosen epigraph announced the trend would continue: "Bless the 
> children, give them triumph now." (Aeschylus)  It's why I expected 
> something different with Draco's story & the younger generation of 
> students, that they would heal the rifts started during Voldemort's 
> first rise to power.  Instead JKR was primarily interested in only 
> three children, how the Trio would save the day, and all the other 
> characters were shuffled off-stage and shuffled back on when the Trio 
> needed help at a critical moment.

Montavilla47:
Another good reading.  But, although I like the term "sacrifice," I don't
see why it's necesssary to tear down one character to build up another.
But, then, it's all of a piece with the shuffling off and on-stage of the
supporting characters.

We could read that epilogue as Harry's generation slowly healing the 
rifts--with the rifts still being there.  Slytherin is still bad, but not
*so* bad that you would disown your son if he were sorted into it--
although, maybe Ron over there would.

Draco isn't good enough to talk to or shake hands with, but it's 
all right if he wants to nod at you from a distance.  And he's balding,
so there's a bit of Karmic justice still going on and wake-up call
for the fangirls who like his blonde hair.

And there were moments given to the Harry generation.  Luna,
Seamus, and Ernie even get to rescue the Trio from the Dementors.
That's considerably more than they got to do the rest of the year.
(Except Luna and her mighty nail!)

I guess this is a place where I just don't like the direction JKR
took.  I fully admit that that's my problem and not hers.

Montavilla47 







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 28 18:50:15 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:50:15 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/ Draco
In-Reply-To: <g421s3+hjja@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g46157+q4sn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183495

> Jen: 
> OK, OK, this is tongue in cheek; I'm *not* down on HP, not at all, 
> liked DH more and more with each reading and count several moments 
> among my favorite scenes ever.  But would it really have undermined 
> Harry that much to have other characters do something important 
> besides start Harry Potter fan clubs & remind each other to keep 
the 
> faith because Harry would surely save the day soon?  

a_svirn:
I think it would, from Rowling's point of view. In the old the role-
of-personality-in-history she would be in the extreme hero-worshipers 
camp. Social determinist she is not. Harry is not just the sun around 
which everything revolves; the trouble is that there isn't even 
anything to revolve. As agents of history the ordinary people of the 
WW simply do not exist. Their lives are of course affected by the 
historical circumstances, but these circumstances are determined 
solely by "great" wizards. The only way an ordinary witch or wizard 
can influence history is by helping a great wizard to fulfil his 
destiny (incidentally there are no great witches). That's why there 
wasn't anything left for the Order of Phoenix to do after they had 
evacuated Harry from the Dursley's ? because anything they *could* do 
on their own would be utterly inconsequential. So they were reduced 
to keeping faith and trying to keep their families safe. Even the 
Great Battle of Hogwarts was fought with the sole purpose of buying a 
few hours for Harry so that he would find something no one really 
knew what. Other than that it was pointless and ? up until the main 
opponents joined the fray ? inconclusive. All of which does have an 
effect of making Harry seem superhuman, or, as Voldemort would 
say, "much more than a man" in consequently somewhat lacking in 
ordinary humanity. 
a_svirn




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun 28 20:03:43 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:03:43 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/ Draco/Are we being too critical?
In-Reply-To: <g45jum+6abv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g465ev+h19t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183496

> Montavilla:
> > But, I don't think JKR was headed there at all.  And, instead of
> > getting better, almost all the characters got considerably worse. 
> > James, Sirius, Lily, and Lupin all became less impressive by the
> > end of the book.  Dumbledore went from being beloved mentor to
> > looking as manipulative and arrogant as Voldemort.
> 
> Jen: JKR sacrifices her adult characters for the children.  Her 
> chosen epigraph announced the trend would continue: "Bless the 
> children, give them triumph now." (Aeschylus)  It's why I expected 
> something different with Draco's story & the younger generation of 
> students, that they would heal the rifts started during Voldemort's 
> first rise to power.  Instead JKR was primarily interested in only 
> three children, how the Trio would save the day, and all the other 
> characters were shuffled off-stage and shuffled back on when the Trio 
> needed help at a critical moment.

Magpie:
Yes, basically. Although since you are pretty much set at 11 there's 
not much difference between adults and children--that was the other 
thing I learned I was wrong about. The children who were especially 
good were especially good at 11, and in interviews anyway, the solution 
is just to put them in charge and let them run everything. (Though 
that's not covered in the story--to me it seems like the ending is a 
fitting bookend in that Harry is basically now Vernon, but without all 
Vernon's flaws.) Less good people can still sometimes be useful--it's a 
lot like chess where people have their "move" and any move can 
sometimes be good. But good people still have to live in the same world 
as all those people who suck or just kind of suck.

Montavilla:
We could read that epilogue as Harry's generation slowly healing the
rifts--with the rifts still being there. Slytherin is still bad, but not
*so* bad that you would disown your son if he were sorted into it--
although, maybe Ron over there would.

Magpie:
Not that Harry would have to face that particular question. Little AS 
is coming to him because he's already so not Slytherin he's worried 
about being Sorted into Slytherin (and Ron and Hermione's kids are 
probably just as anti-Slytherin). So not only would he not be Sorted 
there anyway, he's got the backup of knowing to be doubly sure by 
saying "Don't put me in Slytherin" to the hat. I think the main reason 
for that exchange is that it gives teh author a chance to clear up that 
even though Harry and Snape never actually resolved their own 
differences, that chapter where we found out he was in love with 
Harry's mother and was a good guy all along means that we should 
respect him as incredibly brave.

-m




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Sat Jun 28 20:05:37 2008
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:05:37 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Resolutions/Ron's Cloak/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g44lbs+hgk6@eGroups.com>
References: <g4432j+kisj@eGroups.com> <g44lbs+hgk6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0806281305n3cf9b806x2f07d2468ae2d678@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183497

Montavilla47
 think there are at least two ways of being "disapppointed" (my word
of the day) in a book. You can be upset that the author's purpose was
different than you thought.
You can be also be disappointed that the author didn't fully deliver on
her purpose.

As an example, let's take the House Elves. Because she ends the series
with her hero perfectly happy owning a slave, I tend to think JKR confused
her "slavery is bad" message, and that the real message ended up being,
"slavery is only bad if you abuse your authority as a slave owner."

Lynda:
I agree. As far as the House Elf situation is concerned I know that a lot of
readers were disappointed that the House elves were not all freed and/or
that Harry actually still owned one at the end of the series.

I wasn't. I never saw that freeing the houseelves was one of those
storylines that had to be resolved. In the series, wizarding families have
owned House Elves for centuries. The House Elves enjoy working for wizards,
although not the treatment they receive at the hands of neglectful and
abusive owners. Does that mean I personally believe that slavery is a good
thing? NO. But it was not essential as far as I could see, for JKR to have
the House Elves freed. Or, for that matter, for Harry to give Kreacher his
freedom. I knew that slavery was bad prior to reading the HP books. I still
know the same thing afterwords. I also know that in employer/employee
relationships, being treated with respect and dignity is important and tend
to think that Rowling was talking about that as much as she was about
slavery.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 28 20:28:09 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:28:09 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3sp5c+69em@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g466sp+jdj5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183498

Geoff wrote:
> I think the whole point is that the perfect book cannot exist.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because the concept of perfection is different to everyone on this
list. <snip> I would have felt very let down and even betrayed if JKR
had allowed Harry to be killed. And yet, there were many for whom the
boot was on the other foot and were in their turn disappointed.
> 
> For every person who thought that DH was a cop out and full of plot
holes, there was one who was reasonably well satisfied by the
outcomes.  Personally, I belonged to the latter group - except for the
epilogue. 
<snip>

Carol responds:

I agree that JKR could not possibly have met the expectations or
fulfilled the hopes of every reader. In fact, I'd wager that the
majority of readers were surprised by many aspects of the book and
more than half were disappointed in some way. (Yes, we knew that
characters, a lot more than the two mistakenly predicted by reporters
who misread her comment about two *unplanned* deaths, but why our
favorite character?) Themes and subplots that we thought were
important were left unresolved, etc., or characters whose development
we hoped for seemed to regress. (I'm generalizing, and I'm sure that I
haven't mentioned all the ways in which various readers were
disappointed.)

However, a book or series *can* be judged by more objective criteria,
one of which is consistency. The HP books, and DH in particular,
contain many inconsistencies, ranging from the relatively minor (such
as the number of students at Hogwarts) to the thematically important
(the treatment of Unforgiveable Curses). Puzzles like the presence of
Lily's letter to Sirius in the Black family home are left for the
reader to figure out--JKR herself seems not even to notice the
problem. Nor does she realize that the date of the letter, just after
Harry's first birthday, conflicts with the statement in GoF that
Wormtail was made SK only a week before the Potters' deaths. JKR seems
not even to check her own fictional facts.

There also minor stylistic flaws, such as dangling modifiers and even
an occasional grammatical error ("myself" for "me") that a copyeditor
should have caught and corrected, but I doubt that most readers notice
such things.

At any rate, not all the flaws in DH are in the eyes of the beholder.
Some are failures to uphold the standards of correctness and
completeness and consistency that both readers and editors have a
right to expect.

OTOH, JKR had every right as an author to kill off characters in the
way she saw fit and to bring in the Deathly Hallows, in particular the
Elder Wand, just as we as readers have every right to wish that we
hadn't. What we can't do, however, is to judge such authorial
decisions as flaws in the books comparable to the various Flints and
inconsistencies, which *are* errors and ought, if possible, to be
corrected in any revised edition (or at least acknowledged by JKR, who
seems unwilling to admit that she's ever made a mistake and instead
rationalizes everything from Flint's year in school to Harry's
inability to see Thestrals at the end of GoF).

Carol, who thinks that to some extent both the Hallows and the
Horcruxes are McGuffins





From muellem at bc.edu  Sat Jun 28 20:53:37 2008
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:53:37 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
In-Reply-To: <g3uucb+gink@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g468ch+79u6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183499

<snipping summary>

> Discussion Questions:
> 1) What did you think of Harry's story, that he is a Slytherin 
> named Vernon Dudley whose father works at the Ministry?
> 
colebiancardi:

poetic justice.  Harry takes the two "families" he cannot stand - the
Slytherin family and the Dudley family - and uses them to create an
alias!!  


> 2) Greyback takes the party to Malfoy Manor rather than 
> summoning Voldemort himself. Harry surmises this is because Greyback 
> is not a marked Death Eater. What do you think? 

colebiancardi:
Harry is probably correct.  Greyback is not "pure-blood" (well,
neither are "some" of the deatheaters, but that is another story) and
I cannot see Voldy giving Greyback that type of "status" in his club
 

> 4) What did you think of Draco in the scene where he is asked to 
> identify Harry?

colebiancardi:

half-hearted attempt by Draco - he is no longer the arrogant bully,
but  a defeated prisoner in his own home
> 
> 5) Lucius, Bella, and Greyback all argue over who should get 
> what credit for the capture. What does each hope to gain?
 
colebiancardi:

status, of course.  Bella, just because she just fawns over Voldy. 
Lucius - to regain his status within the DeathEaters, as he has messed
up several times.  Greyback - to get that coveted "DeathMark" and be
in the DeathEaters club as a real member.


> 7) What did you think prompted Bella's extreme fear when she 
> believed the Sword of Gryffindor was stolen from her vault?
> 
colebiancardi:

huh.  Loss of her favored status with Voldy and the punishment he
would inflict on her (well, maybe not the latter part - I think Bella
LIKES punishments)


> 8) What did you think was the explanation for Dumbledore's eye 
> in the broken mirror?

colebiancardi:

Beyond the veil.  Seriously.  I did think it was DD's eye and he was
still watching out over the trio, even though he was dead
> 
> 9) "May your loyalty never waver again", Voldemort said to Peter 
> after giving him the silver hand in GoF. Now we know what he meant. 
> What did you think of Peter's death? Did you like or dislike the way 
> it ended his story? Do you see any special meaning in it?
> 
colebiancardi:
I was never a Peter fan.  He sold out his friends.  I think it was
fitting as he knew he owed Harry a life-debt and his hesitation was
his downfall.   I think Voldy put a curse on the hand, with his little
comment (as stated up above) and it kicked it when Peter hesitated,
torn between his loyalty to Voldy and his life-debt to Harry.
 
> 11) Why do you think Griphook lied to Bella?

colebiancardi:

no love lost between trolls and wizards.  After all, trolls think that
wizards have stolen from them for centuries.  Not suprised.


great summary & questions!!!

cb





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 28 21:03:37 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:03:37 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g3ta3v+n1ds@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g468v9+8jed@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183500

Hickengruendler wrote:
> 
><snip> yes, I consider the behaviour of Gryffindor and Ravenclaw
pretty flawed as well. Nonetheless, I don't recall either of them
hiding a monster inside Hogwarts to kill everyone who ist cowardly or
stupid.

Carol responds:

Probably because cowardly or stupid students posed no threat to the
school, perceived or otherwise, whereas Salazar Slytherin perceived a
threat, real or imagined, to Pure-Blood and possibly Half-Blood
students (he may have excluded Half-Bloods from his House while he
lived, but he saw no reason to deny them a Hogwarts education) from
Muggle-borns, with their family ties to Muggles, whom he perceived
(not without reason) as a threat to the very lives of Witches and Wizards.

BTW, the concept of blood superiority was thoroughly rooted in
medieval culture both before and after the eleventh century and would
have been as prevalent among Muggles as it probably was among Wizards.
I would think that Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, and Gryffindor were far more
enlightened with regard to "bloodism" than the rank-and-file wizards
of their time. Slytherin's attitude (setting aside the extremism of
placing a Basilisk in a hidden chamber to kill "unworthy" students)
was more typical of the time than theirs.

Ask any medieval "prince of the blood" whether he would even think of
marrying a commoner. (Well, not counting Edward IV, who married the
widow of an enemy knight some 470 years later because she wouldn't
yield her "virtue" to him otherwise.)

At any rate, the whole concept of equality despite birth and class and
property and "blood" was foreign to the times in which the Founders
lived, so why should we expect tolerance among Wizards for those of
"inferior" blood (Muggle-borns), especially when their Muggle kindred
(or some of them) were busy trying to wipe out "sorcery" and equating
it with the Black Arts and devil worship?

Carol, who really needs to work on making her sentence structure less
convoluted!




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jun 28 22:15:29 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:15:29 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/Ron's Cloak/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g44lbs+hgk6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g46d61+a73v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183501

 
> Montavilla47:

> 
> As an example, let's take the House Elves.  Because she ends the
series  with her hero perfectly happy owning a slave, I tend to  think
JKR confused her "slavery is bad" message, and that the real message
ended up being, "slavery is only bad if you abuse your authority as a
slave owner."

Pippin:
But is that a real message? Nobody that I know of has actually felt
swayed to that belief by the books. No character in the novel wants
less freedom than he or she has. Even Voldemort's most willing
servants expect to win more freedom, not less. No reader that I know
of feels Kreacher's lot was happier than Dobby's, though Kreacher
lives and Dobby dies.

There's a famous painting called "The Treachery of Images" in which a
realistically painted tobacco pipe floats in space above the words (in
French) "This is not a pipe." On one level the words read as false.
But on another level they are true: you're not really looking at a
pipe, it's a painting of a pipe. The artist subverts the conventions
of genre in order to show how convention shapes what we see.

JKR does the same thing. Epic heroes are supposed to represent all the
values of their culture. Harry is instantaneously recognizable as an
epic hero, but he's doing something people in our culture aren't
supposed to do. It creates a cognitive dissonance, and reminds us that
Harry is not a real hero, he's a fictional one. But it also reminds us
that if he were a real hero, we would be unwise to expect  him to be
morally flawless. The image of a hero is not a hero. 

It's not the evil characters we're asked to forgive. It's the good
ones, for not measuring up to our ideal of goodness. And it's not the
crimes of the evil characters we must pardon, but ourselves for seeing
more evil in them than was there. 

Snape is right at the cusp of this: readers who expected him to be
good found that he wasn't as good as they hoped he would be. Readers
who wanted him to be evil discovered that he wasn't as evil as they
thought.

Who do you think Anne Frank was talking about when she said people
were basically good? Didn't she mean that people were only cooperating
with evil because they were frightened and misled,  inflamed against
the innocent or desperate to help the people they loved? How is that
different from Draco? Or Snape? 

Pippin




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 28 22:29:25 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:29:25 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g466sp+jdj5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g46e05+nbra@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183502

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Puzzles like the presence of Lily's letter to Sirius in 
> the Black family home are left for the reader to figure 
> out--JKR herself seems not even to notice the problem. 
> Nor does she realize that the date of the letter, just 
> after Harry's first birthday, conflicts with the statement 
> in GoF that Wormtail was made SK only a week before the
> Potters' deaths. 


The date of the letter also conflicts with DD's statement in "King's 
Cross" chapter about James showing the Cloak to DD "just a few days 
previously", meaning a few days before their death (p.714). According 
to DD, James showed him the Cloak, and DD took it to examine just a 
few days before Lily and James died in October. However, Lily 
mentions in her letter (which is supposed to be written some time in 
August, I believe) that DD has the cloak and James can't go out 
because of that. 

I usually forgive the books inconsistencies easier than Carol does 
(for instance, I'm not bothered by the fact that the letter got 
somehow to 12 GP :-)), but the date of the letter really bothers me. 
Either this is an inconsistency, or we have to assume that Lily wrote 
a thank you letter to Sirius three months after Harry's birthday, 
which makes no sense at all.


zanooda, who thinks that it would be very easy to correct the timing 
of the letter, if JKR wanted to ...




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jun 28 22:52:57 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:52:57 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g46e05+nbra@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g46fc9+cssk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183503

Zanooda:
> 
> I usually forgive the books inconsistencies easier than Carol does 
> (for instance, I'm not bothered by the fact that the letter got 
> somehow to 12 GP :-)), but the date of the letter really bothers me. 
> Either this is an inconsistency, or we have to assume that Lily wrote 
> a thank you letter to Sirius three months after Harry's birthday, 
> which makes no sense at all.
> 

Pippin:
The explanation is in the letter. Sirius missed Harry's first birthday
because he was away on a mission for the Order. The first broom  would
thus have been a belated present, just like the Firebolt. Of course
Lily would be much too polite to mention that, and only remarks
diplomatically that Harry likes this present best of all.  

JKR is clearly aware of the gap in time here, since otherwise there
would be no need to invent a birthday tea that Sirius did not attend.

I'm not bothered that the letter got to GP. We know that Sirius's
belongings were not confiscated, since he still had his Gringotts vault. 
 

Pippin




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Jun 28 23:48:46 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:48:46 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g466sp+jdj5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g46iku+hrc2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183504

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
eoff:
> > I think the whole point is that the perfect book cannot exist.
 
> > Why?

> > Because the concept of perfection is different to everyone on this
> list. <snip> I would have felt very let down and even betrayed if JKR
> had allowed Harry to be killed. And yet, there were many for whom the
> boot was on the other foot and were in their turn disappointed.
> > 
> > For every person who thought that DH was a cop out and full of plot
> holes, there was one who was reasonably well satisfied by the
> outcomes.  Personally, I belonged to the latter group - except for the
> epilogue. 
> <snip>
 
Carol:
 
> I agree that JKR could not possibly have met the expectations or
> fulfilled the hopes of every reader. In fact, I'd wager that the
> majority of readers were surprised by many aspects of the book and
> more than half were disappointed in some way. (Yes, we knew that
> characters, a lot more than the two mistakenly predicted by reporters
> who misread her comment about two *unplanned* deaths, but why our
> favorite character?) Themes and subplots that we thought were
> important were left unresolved, etc., or characters whose development
> we hoped for seemed to regress. (I'm generalizing, and I'm sure that I
> haven't mentioned all the ways in which various readers were
> disappointed.)
> 
> However, a book or series *can* be judged by more objective criteria,
> one of which is consistency. The HP books, and DH in particular,
> contain many inconsistencies, ranging from the relatively minor (such
> as the number of students at Hogwarts) to the thematically important
> (the treatment of Unforgiveable Curses). Puzzles like the presence of
> Lily's letter to Sirius in the Black family home are left for the
> reader to figure out--JKR herself seems not even to notice the
> problem. Nor does she realize that the date of the letter, just after
> Harry's first birthday, conflicts with the statement in GoF that
> Wormtail was made SK only a week before the Potters' deaths. JKR seems
> not even to check her own fictional facts.
> 
> There also minor stylistic flaws, such as dangling modifiers and even
> an occasional grammatical error ("myself" for "me") that a copyeditor
> should have caught and corrected, but I doubt that most readers notice
> such things.

Geoff:
Anyone who knows me will probably have noticed that I have been 
posting very rarely on Main; I have written just 17 messages in the 
last two and a half months which is far less than what I would consider 
my usual rate. This is partly due to the fact that I have been finding the 
current threads are not "grabbing"  me. Some of them are settling down 
into long running "tennis matches" where various contributors have 
established well-entrenched positions from which they bombard the 
other side of no-mans-land with the same arguments couched in 
different words. The results are, to me at least, are uninspiring at best 
and, at worst, boring. So I tend to refrain from replying and often skip 
over them at my 07:30 daily reading time.

However, I have felt an urge to come out from behind my battlements 
to add my two pennyworth to some of the comments which have 
recently been made in the hope that one or two others might join me 
in trying to widen the discussion.

Looking at Carol's comments, I must first say that the reason I read 
any fiction is to enjoy it. So with Harry Potter and his story. I read the 
books for pleasure; I am prepared to apply the willing suspension of 
disbelief, enjoy the worlds of the characters and not agonise over 
inconsistencies. I am not by nature a nitpicker in this sense although 
being a member of HPFGU for very nearly five years has drawn me 
into this behaviour on occasions.

Perhaps some of the group ? maybe even most of the group ? prefer 
to indulge in inspecting the structure of books with a fine toothcomb 
and checking to see if the nuts and bolts are the right size but, to my 
way of thinking, this can destroy the pleasure, freshness and charm of 
a book. Inconsistencies do creep in. At the time of his death, Tolkien 
had been working for  a long time trying to tie up loose ends between 
"The Silmarillion" and LOTR, and some problems internally on the former 
volume. Christopher Tolkien who edited the book for its posthumous 
publication admitted that he had not managed to iron out all the 
anomalies. 

One of my favourite books is "To Serve Them All My Days" by R. F. 
Delderfield which is a book about a young teacher coming to a public 
school on Exmoor. I like it because I have come to know Exmoor 
intimately as a holidaymaker and, latterly, as a resident - and as a 
former teacher, I can empathise with the leasing character. And yet, 
Delderfield has been very cavalier with his time lines and often I sigh 
because the dates do not tie in. Does this detract from my enjoyment? 
Not really. I can live with a faulty date or a split infinitive or a hung 
preposition because a grammatical error does not destroy the 
author's world.

In general, I like the HP series of books, some better than others. 
There are some parts which I prefer to skip but, let's face, there are  
parts of LOTR which I find equally as heavy to get through as some 
of the camping scenes in DH. Whatever the shortcomings of some 
of the action of the last book, I still never fail to feel uplifted by the 
last book from about the chapter on "The Forest Again" to the end 
of "The Flaw in the Plan".

As I have previously written, if I do have a serious grouse, it is with 
the Epilogue. It leaves a lot of unconnected dots and also closes a 
number of avenues where we can speculate in the privacy of our own 
imaginations about the future activities of our heroes (and anti-heroes). 
I want to know about the relationship between Harry and Draco after 
their end of schooling. What has brought them to the point of at least 
acknowledging each other at the railway station? Draco has obviously 
married and fathered a son; what happened about his connections with 
Voldemort and the dark side after the war? Was he brought before the 
Wizengamot? Did Harry speak up for him? After all, the two of them 
owe each other life debts. Harry was saved by Draco willingness to 
hide the truth - and also by Narcissa's similar action. Draco was 
saved by Harry. Did this come into play? What has Draco actually 
been doing over the years? It is this area where the vagueness and 
possible options can lead to misunderstandings. It reminds me of 
Daphne du Maurier's novel "My Cousin Rachel", which was described 
by an erstwhile English teaching colleague of mine as the most 
annoying and frustrating book he had ever read because of the 
various interpretations which can be drawn because of what is left 
unanswered up in the air at the end of the book.

I have always wanted to see a measure of rapprochement and 
redemption between Harry and Draco and I would like to think 
that it happened. I have read a number of fanfics which attempt to
join the dots on this, some good. some not. I can live with time 
problems and the fact that JKR's Maths leaves much to be desired 
and other inconsistencies; what really bugs me is the lack of detail 
between 1998 and 2017 and the stumbling blocks placed in the 
path of private speculation.

There, I feel much better for writing all that. My apologies to those 
of you who don't!
:-)






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 29 01:56:04 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:56:04 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g46fc9+cssk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g46q3k+ocmg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183505

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

> The explanation is in the letter. Sirius missed Harry's first 
> birthday because he was away on a mission for the Order. The 
> first broom  would thus have been a belated present, just like the 
> Firebolt.


zanooda:

Maybe, but I'm not entirely convinced :-). I don't think it took
Sirius three months to send the broom. He missed Harry's birthday,
right, but it seems to me that he sent the present the same day or
right after, not in October! Why Lily would even describe him that
birthday tea, if it happened so long ago? She also says that "Harry's
not old enough to know it's his birthday", not that "Harry *was* not
old enough ...". "Harry's" means "Harry is" here, right? Or do I
misunderstand it?

I know that it is my personal perception, and I'm not even saying that
I'm right, because obviously you are the English-speaker here, not me
:-)! Still, that's how I see it - to me, the letter was written very
soon after the birthday, and that birthday tea sounds like a very
recent event to me. BTW, why would the Firebolt be a belated present
:-)? I thought Sirius intended it as a Christmas present. 


> Pippin wrote:
 
> I'm not bothered that the letter got to GP.


zanooda:

Yeah, me neither :-). There are a few possible explanations. 

I accidentally erased the part of your post about the contents of
Sirius's vault not being confiscated, but I wanted to add that they
didn't do it to anyone - Bella and other DEs all still have their
vaults. However, I would really like to know how Bella got her wand
back. They broke Hagrid's wand just because he was expelled, don't
they brake the wands of people who get life sentences? It doesn't seem
logical. And Sirius didn't have his wand after he escaped, iirc.








From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 29 05:07:48 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 05:07:48 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/Ron's Cloak/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g46d61+a73v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g475b4+elbo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183506

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Montavilla47:
> 
> > 
> > As an example, let's take the House Elves.  Because she ends the
> series  with her hero perfectly happy owning a slave, I tend to  think
> JKR confused her "slavery is bad" message, and that the real message
> ended up being, "slavery is only bad if you abuse your authority as a
> slave owner."
> 
> Pippin:
> But is that a real message? Nobody that I know of has actually felt
> swayed to that belief by the books. No character in the novel wants
> less freedom than he or she has. Even Voldemort's most willing
> servants expect to win more freedom, not less. No reader that I know
> of feels Kreacher's lot was happier than Dobby's, though Kreacher
> lives and Dobby dies.

Montavilla47:
The point isn't that people would be swayed to that belief.  Obviously,
most people don't own slaves--well, that they'd admit to.  There was
a case in the last few years about a group of East Indian workers who
were held in virtual slavery in Texas.  The "employer" confiscated their
passports and kept them in a barracks, feeding them rotten food
and paying less than they were charged for room and board.

What's subversive about it is that it allows the audience to become
very comfortable with the idea of slavery as a positive arrangement.

Why it's worth pointing out is that the message is more powerful
when it isn't directly stated.  When it's simply, as it were, part of 
the background.  

Pippin:
> There's a famous painting called "The Treachery of Images" in which a
> realistically painted tobacco pipe floats in space above the words (in
> French) "This is not a pipe." On one level the words read as false.
> But on another level they are true: you're not really looking at a
> pipe, it's a painting of a pipe. The artist subverts the conventions
> of genre in order to show how convention shapes what we see.
> 
> JKR does the same thing. Epic heroes are supposed to represent all the
> values of their culture. Harry is instantaneously recognizable as an
> epic hero, but he's doing something people in our culture aren't
> supposed to do. It creates a cognitive dissonance, and reminds us that
> Harry is not a real hero, he's a fictional one. But it also reminds us
> that if he were a real hero, we would be unwise to expect  him to be
> morally flawless. The image of a hero is not a hero. 

Montavilla47:
That only works if we recognize that the image of the hero isn't a 
hero.  I'm not sure that most people actually do realize it.  

Especially because we lose Snape in the last book.  He was a
useful character for pointing out where Harry came up short in 
the hero department.  

McGonagall is only briefly taken back when Harry uses an
Unforgivable curse and she immediately uses another one 
herself.  She's the only person who is even slightly thrown
by it.

Whether by accident or design, we are left in the last book
with no conscience at all.  And there's nothing in the book
to prevent us from cheering along with everyone else
when Harry tortures Amycus.  Indeed, many readers have
stated that they did.

Pippin:
> It's not the evil characters we're asked to forgive. It's the good
> ones, for not measuring up to our ideal of goodness. And it's not the
> crimes of the evil characters we must pardon, but ourselves for seeing
> more evil in them than was there. 

Montavilla47:
Where in the book are we asked to forgive the good characters?
Other than Dumbledore, who is dead anyway?

Pippin:
> Snape is right at the cusp of this: readers who expected him to be
> good found that he wasn't as good as they hoped he would be. Readers
> who wanted him to be evil discovered that he wasn't as evil as they
> thought.
> 
> Who do you think Anne Frank was talking about when she said people
> were basically good? Didn't she mean that people were only cooperating
> with evil because they were frightened and misled,  inflamed against
> the innocent or desperate to help the people they loved? How is that
> different from Draco? Or Snape? 

Montavilla47:
Exactly, Pippin.  That's who she was talking about and probably what
she meant.  But isn't part of her story that given half a chance people
will do what good they can?

The problem I have with Draco's story is that it's left so ambiguous 
that you can easily say that Draco tries to do good and can't, or tries
to do bad while being pathetically incompetent, or doesn't try to do
anything at all.

I'm sure that was JKR's intention.  So, I'm going to be unfair and 
say I didn't like her authorial choice.








From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Sun Jun 29 12:38:57 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:38:57 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
In-Reply-To: <g43nji+dhd6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g47vp1+sv3d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183507

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jayne" <jaynesmith62@> wrote:
> 
> > > zanooda:
>  
> > > snip> 
> 
> To return to HP - if not 
> Aberforth's, whose eye did you think it was :-)?
> 
> 
> zanooda, who was totally at a loss about the eye ...
>
Not so sure who's eye it was. I did wonder if it could be DD somehow
but wasn't sure. Of course he was dead , but in HP you never knew

Jayne




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 29 16:01:53 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:01:53 -0000
Subject: Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)
In-Reply-To: <g468v9+8jed@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g48blh+7to4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183508

> Carol:
> BTW, the concept of blood superiority was thoroughly rooted in
> medieval culture both before and after the eleventh century and 
would
> have been as prevalent among Muggles as it probably was among 
Wizards.
> I would think that Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, and Gryffindor were far 
more
> enlightened with regard to "bloodism" than the rank-and-file wizards
> of their time. Slytherin's attitude (setting aside the extremism of
> placing a Basilisk in a hidden chamber to kill "unworthy" students)
> was more typical of the time than theirs.

a_svirn:
Basically I agree with you (seriously, I do) except that it leads to 
another question, namely, why is the WW so medieval? Logically, the 
society whose very identity is based on a single talent is more 
likely to be meritocratic. 

> Carol: 
> Ask any medieval "prince of the blood" whether he would even think 
of
> marrying a commoner. (Well, not counting Edward IV, who married the
> widow of an enemy knight some 470 years later because she wouldn't
> yield her "virtue" to him otherwise.)

a_svirn:
Either that, or he was "bewitched". That was, incidentally, the 
version given in Richard III's Titulus Regius. Just another appalling 
example of muggle abuse. 

> Carol: 
> At any rate, the whole concept of equality despite birth and class 
and
> property and "blood" was foreign to the times in which the Founders
> lived, 

a_svirn:
So was the concept of gender equality, yet half of the founders were 
women. Obviously they were somewhat ahead of their times (though I 
have some doubts of Gryffindor, whose "values" are so wholly 
masculine).   

> Carol: 
so why should we expect tolerance among Wizards for those of
> "inferior" blood (Muggle-borns), especially when their Muggle 
kindred
> (or some of them) were busy trying to wipe out "sorcery" and 
equating
> it with the Black Arts and devil worship?

a_svirn:
Then again, there were times when Catholics, Non-conformists, Jews, 
etc. were banned from Oxford and Cambridge. Or women for that matter. 
Those times are long gone, however. And I find it baffling, that even 
after expelling Slytherin for his pronounced bigotry the rest of the 
founders and every headmaster(-mistress) ever since have ensured 
(through the Hat) that Slytherin House remained loyal to its founder 
ideas. 
a_svirn.





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Jun 29 16:09:20 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:09:20 -0000
Subject: Lily's Letter was Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g46q3k+ocmg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g48c3g+77tb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183509

> zanooda:
> 
> Maybe, but I'm not entirely convinced :-). I don't think it took
> Sirius three months to send the broom. He missed Harry's birthday,
> right, but it seems to me that he sent the present the same day or
> right after, not in October! Why Lily would even describe him that
> birthday tea, if it happened so long ago? She also says that
"Harry's not old enough to know it's his birthday", not that "Harry
*was* not old enough ...". "Harry's" means "Harry is" here, right? Or
do I misunderstand it?

Pippin:
I read it the way you did at first and it confused me too. It wasn't
until I heard Jim Dale's reading that I realized there's another
interpretation. I'm not sure how to explain it since I can't reproduce
the intonation, but I could say, informally and conversationally,
"Harry's not old enough to know it's Christmas" and I wouldn't mean
that it's Christmas today and Harry doesn't know it, but that Harry
can't tell when it's Christmas and when it's not.

Said that way, Lily is reassuring Sirius that Harry doesn't understand
that he had a birthday and his presents were supposed to arrive on
that day. Sirius of course would not be confused about her meaning,
since he would know Harry's birthday was long over. 

Since Lily had had time to rearrange the house (wonder if she was good
at household-y spells) after the broken vase, and Harry had gotten
good enough on the broomstick to zip around obstacles like James's
legs instead of crashing into the cat, it wouldn't make sense that she
wrote the letter when it actually was Harry's birthday. She wrote it
afterwards, IMO, just shortly before she died, as other clues
indicate, and told Sirius all about the tea because she knew
he'd want to hear about it and hadn't had a chance to do so before. 

Hagrid and Lupin both went on missions that took them away for a long
period, and Lupin's didn't allow him to send letters, much less gifts.

The belated birthday present comes from PoA: "Please consider it
thirteen birthdays' worth of presents from your godfather."
I always wondered about that, because Sirius should have been around
for Harry's first birthday at least. But now we know he wasn't.

It makes a lot of other things easier to explain if Sirius had been
away for a good while, for instance, why the Fidelius wasn't
implemented sooner, and why Sirius didn't seem to be aware that
suspicion had fallen on him. It also suggests a means by which
Wormtail and Voldemort could have made Sirius look guilty: stop the
leaks and the killings while he was away, start them up again when he
returned.

Pippin










From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Jun 29 16:18:43 2008
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:18:43 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/ Draco
In-Reply-To: <g46157+q4sn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g48cl3+vs5k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183510

> a_svirn:
> I think it would, from Rowling's point of view. In the old the role-
> of-personality-in-history she would be in the extreme hero-
> worshipers camp. Social determinist she is not. Harry is not just 
> the sun around which everything revolves; the trouble is that there 
> isn't even anything to revolve. As agents of history the ordinary
> people of the WW simply do not exist. <snip> 
> So they were reduced to keeping faith and trying to keep their 
> families safe. <snip> 
> All of which does have an effect of making Harry seem superhuman,
> or, as Voldemort would say, "much more than a man" in consequently 
> somewhat lacking in ordinary humanity. 

Jen: Your line of thinking reminded me of another option, one readers 
who've said the story is more Christian allegory than anything else 
have proposed:  That the sun is really the Son, whose polyjuice 
potion turns 'bright, clear gold' and who is accused of '[wearing] 
that scar like a crown.' (DH, p. 130)  Harry, the only one with the 
power to vanquish the Dark Lord, would be intended as somewhat more 
than a man then.  JKR definitely scattered more Christian symbolism 
in DH than prior books.  And if this is the authorial intent, then my 
next thought is she never needed more than a handful of secondary 
characters to begin with.  

Montavilla:
> Another good reading.  But, although I like the term "sacrifice," I
> don't see why it's necesssary to tear down one character to build 
> up another.  But, then, it's all of a piece with the shuffling off
> and on-stage of the supporting characters.

Jen: I agree it isn't necesary at all, a well-written character 
wouldn't overshadow the hero since presumably each character has a 
purpose to fulfill in a way only he/she can.  You pointed out Neville 
as an example of this, one who changed and grew across the seven 
books without requiring the Trio (much) to make that happen. He 
doesn't take Harry's place nor does he have to shrink into 
insignificance beside him (very often, lol). 

Montavilla:
> Draco isn't good enough to talk to or shake hands with, but it's 
> all right if he wants to nod at you from a distance.  And he's 
> balding, so there's a bit of Karmic justice still going on and wake-
> up call for the fangirls who like his blonde hair.

Jen: Hehe, I know this might not be funny to Draco fans but this & 
your passage on Draco's droopy wand both made me laugh out loud.  I 
wouldn't put it past JKR when it comes to what she finds humorous.  

Montavilla:
> And there were moments given to the Harry generation.  Luna,
> Seamus, and Ernie even get to rescue the Trio from the Dementors.
> That's considerably more than they got to do the rest of the year.
> (Except Luna and her mighty nail!)

Jen:  Gosh, I forgot Luna!  She's a character I'd put in with Neville 
as one growing quietly behind the scenes.  She managed to know more 
than the Trio at times and, along with Neville, exhibited a 
compassionate heart for others.  

(Thanks for the kind words, Montavilla, it's a pleasure to read your 
posts for the original observations & turns of phrases you come up 
with. <g>)

> Montavilla:
> We could read that epilogue as Harry's generation slowly healing the
> rifts--with the rifts still being there. Slytherin is still bad,
> but not *so* bad that you would disown your son if he were sorted
> into it--although, maybe Ron over there would.

Magpie:
> Not that Harry would have to face that particular question. Little 
> AS is coming to him because he's already so not Slytherin he's 
> worried about being Sorted into Slytherin (and Ron and Hermione's
> kids are probably just as anti-Slytherin). So not only would he not
> be Sorted there anyway, he's got the backup of knowing to be doubly
> sure by saying "Don't put me in Slytherin" to the hat. I think the
> main reason for that exchange is that it gives teh author a chance
> to clear up that even though Harry and Snape never actually 
> resolved their own differences, that chapter where we found out he
> was in love with Harry's mother and was a good guy all along means
> that we should respect him as incredibly brave.

Jen: The fact that little James taunts Albus Severus indicates to me 
that there's still intra-house rivalry at best and prejudice against 
the house at worst going on at Hogwarts.  Albus Severus won't be 
sorted there imo, since he doesn't value the house and is scared of 
it.  I don't think Harry saddled his son with the names of two OK'ish 
men from the Voldemort Wars though (as I imagine they're called in 
History of Magic) but two heroes, whose names were apparently both 
cleared when all was said and done.  So there IS a Slytherin hero in 
Albus Severus' world instead of the Slytherin villain Harry 
encountered. 

(BTW, I know Harry only calls DD and SS 'headmasters' when talking to 
AS, but after the scene in the Hogwarts dining room when Harry shouts 
the exploits of both Dumbledore & Snape to all assembled, it's hard 
to believe their lasting legacy was as *headmasters*.)




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jun 29 16:56:40 2008
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 29 Jun 2008 16:56:40 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/29/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1214758600.11.34358.m56@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183511

Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday June 29, 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: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20080629/d72e1f94/attachment.html>

From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Jun 29 17:51:38 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:51:38 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/Ron's Cloak/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g475b4+elbo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g48i3a+ib9v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183512

> Pippin:

> > JKR does the same thing. Epic heroes are supposed to represent 
all the
> > values of their culture. Harry is instantaneously recognizable as 
an
> > epic hero, but he's doing something people in our culture aren't
> > supposed to do. It creates a cognitive dissonance, and reminds us 
that
> > Harry is not a real hero, he's a fictional one. But it also 
reminds us
> > that if he were a real hero, we would be unwise to expect  him to 
be
> > morally flawless. The image of a hero is not a hero. 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> That only works if we recognize that the image of the hero isn't a 
> hero.  I'm not sure that most people actually do realize it.  

Magpie:
If we're talking about the author's intention here, then interviews 
can be a little helpful, and I honestly don't see anywhere in the 
book or in interviews that would ever make me think her intention 
here is to make Harry a subversion of the epic hero that's supposed 
to create any kind of dissonance. Honestly, I think Harry perfectly 
represents the values of his/our culture. He has flaws--heroes can--
but okay ones. He's the totally not-racist hero of the plea for 
tolerance story. People within the book comment on his exceptionally 
good treatment of other races and his ability to love. I think JKR 
would consider him a role model in this way. 

The fact that he's really not all that great at it in the opinion of 
some readers, that he would rather kick quasi-Nazi arse than examine 
his own behavior, that he enjoys his Wizard privilege without guilt 
because he didn't personally ask for it...I think a lot of these 
things (along with other things) are just a natural part of 
that. "Not being a saint" is in itself a good thing in modern culture 
and it's not the only way that the story's hero gets to have it both 
ways. Many scenes that bother some readers are, I agree with 
Montavilla, meant to be crowd-pleasers. And I actually would say that 
the Kreacher story may be intended to reflect well on Harry for 
caring about him and nothing more. The fact that he's a slavemaster, 
well, you know those funny House Elves naturally fawn over everybody. 
Many have argued Harry would be insulting Kreacher by not using his 
services. He's just making a sacrifice here. In his world, many old 
arguments in favor of slavery can be true. I don't get the sense the 
Trio has fallen by enjoying their happy home with Kreacher. In fact, 
I'd suggest many would read Kreacher as the one redeemed here through 
Harry and his friends.

I mean, even in talking about Harry's future it all seems to hang on 
his personal superiority. So much so that the world gets much better 
when he's put in a position of great power while he's still in his 
20s. He has, I think, proved himself to have a superior personal 
character in the way he gets angry at people he perceives as bullying 
the innocent, is friends with Wizards who aren't completely Wizards, 
hates Voldemort, and agreed to die. (As Jen even mentioned recently, 
his Polyjuice is pure gold.) When asked about things like his Crucio 
the author gets defensive of Harry rather than using the question to 
underscore this alleged dissonance.

-m




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Jun 29 18:03:05 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:03:05 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/Ron's Cloak/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g475b4+elbo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g48iop+q916@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183513

> 
> Montavilla47:
> That only works if we recognize that the image of the hero isn't a 
> hero.  I'm not sure that most people actually do realize it.  

Pippin:
If they don't realize it, then why would they have some mythical
standard of behavior for him? They'd have to judge him against the
heroes and heroines of the real world. 

In the real world, the images of slave owners are on our money and our
monuments. Schools and cities  and beloved children are named after
them. Not *because* they were slave owners, of course, at least I hope
not. But it's something we have to deal with. If all  that is acting
subconsciously to make us okay with slavery, it's a problem that goes
*way* beyond Harry Potter. 


Montavilla:
> 
> Whether by accident or design, we are left in the last book
> with no conscience at all. 

Pippin:
No conscience but our own, you mean. We're in big trouble if we can't
tell the difference between right and wrong without an editorial from
JK Rowling. Certainly we can't be inherently good. 

Montavilla:
 And there's nothing in the book
> to prevent us from cheering along with everyone else
> when Harry tortures Amycus.  Indeed, many readers have
> stated that they did.

Pippin:
Who is the everyone else? Nobody cheers in canon, IIRC.

McGonagall doesn't cheer. She's surprised, and then says it was
"gallant." That's an equivocal word. It can be used as a synonym for
"chivalrous" but unlike that word, it can also imply falseness or
foppishness. Since McGongall follows up by casting a triple patronus
and then using a curse herself, it's clear she was perfectly capable
of defending her own honor. Which would make Harry's assumption that
she needed him to avenge her as much an insult as the spitting. 

It reminds me a bit of SWM, where James feels virtuous about not using
"mudblood" while at the same time he's unconsciously insulting Lily by
implying that her company is for sale. 

If readers felt good about what Harry did, then they're not opposed to
torture under any circumstances, despite what they may have thought.
If you really want to end torture, that's the reality you have to deal
with. Denial won't get us anywhere, I'm afraid. 


> 
> Montavilla47:
> Where in the book are we asked to forgive the good characters?
> Other than Dumbledore, who is dead anyway?

Pippin:
James,  a hero famous for something he didn't do; Sirius,  for abusing
Kreacher; Ron, for making cruel jokes; Hermione, for her violent
temper and her general know-it-all obtuseness. Do I have to go on?

 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> Exactly, Pippin.  That's who she was talking about and probably what
> she meant.  But isn't part of her story that given half a chance
people will do what good they can?
> 
> The problem I have with Draco's story is that it's left so ambiguous 
> that you can easily say that Draco tries to do good and can't, or
tries to do bad while being pathetically incompetent, or doesn't try
to do anything at all.
> 
> I'm sure that was JKR's intention.  So, I'm going to be unfair and 
> say I didn't like her authorial choice.

Pippin:
Your privilege. But part of her story is that it doesn't matter what
Draco was capable of, once you understand that no one in canon was
trying to be bad. No one had the primary motivation of wanting to harm
others. Even Voldemort wanted most to stay alive. 

Everybody except Voldemort wanted approval from somebody, and tried to
do  things that would earn it.

Initially, Harry doesn't want to have to choose what to believe about
Dumbledore. He insists that he wants the truth. But in the end he
doesn't want to know whether Dumbledore killed his sister or not, and
wants even less to make Dumbledore tell him. 

Once you've chosen to forgive, what does it matter whether you're
forgiving Draco for trying to be bad, or for failing at being good, or
for not trying at all? What does it matter whether Draco himself knows?


Pippin





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 29 18:23:04 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:23:04 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/ Draco
In-Reply-To: <g48cl3+vs5k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g48ju8+qbpv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183514

> Jen: Your line of thinking reminded me of another option, one 
readers 
> who've said the story is more Christian allegory than anything else 
> have proposed:  That the sun is really the Son, whose polyjuice 
> potion turns 'bright, clear gold' and who is accused of '[wearing] 
> that scar like a crown.' (DH, p. 130)  Harry, the only one with the 
> power to vanquish the Dark Lord, would be intended as somewhat more 
> than a man then.  JKR definitely scattered more Christian symbolism 
> in DH than prior books.  

a_svirn:
I think reading it as Christian allegory is rather misleading (even 
if Rowling herself responsible for any such ambiguities). Christ 
wasn't a hero or a superman, was he? He didn't fight any celestial 
battles (that had been Archangel Michael's job) or any other battles 
with Satan for that matter. (Well, there is Book of Revelation, but 
since it is about the end of the world it doesn't seem to apply 
here.) His mission was to vicariously atone for the original sin, not 
to save the world as it was known. The hero fighting the evil and 
saving the world is more common for *pre-* Christian mythologies than 
for Christianity. Harry and Voldemort's battle has in fact more 
similarities with Marduk overcoming Tiamat, or Thor killing 
Jormungandr etc. But yes, this is more in keeping with mythological 
worldview than with "historical" one, so to speak. 


> Jen: And if this is the authorial intent, then my 
> next thought is she never needed more than a handful of secondary 
> characters to begin with.  

a_svirn:
Well, yes. I mean she is very good at coming up with subplots and 
secondary characters, but in DH where the grand scheme of things was 
to be revealed at last these characters suddenly became redundant. No 
wonder she killed them off in droves. 
a_svirn.




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 29 20:08:28 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:08:28 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g466sp+jdj5@eGroups.com>
References: <g466sp+jdj5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4867EBBC.40507@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183515

I've a nagging feeling I'm misreading you here; maybe I'm sparring with 
windmills.

Carol:
JKR had every right as an author to kill off characters in the
way she saw fit and to bring in the Deathly Hallows, in particular the
Elder Wand, just as we as readers have every right to wish that we
hadn't. What we can't do, however, is to judge such authorial
decisions as flaws in the books comparable to the various Flints and
inconsistencies, which *are* errors

CJ:
If by "not comparable to" Flints, et alia, you mean "of a qualitative 
difference with", I'd agree. One would certainly not want to compare a 
structural flaw with a minor math error.

However -- and this is where I may be flailing at phantoms -- I read you 
as saying we're not allowed to judge them as flaws. Full stop. I think 
as readers we have every right to judge whether an authorial decision as 
significant as the introduction of a major plot line succeeds or fails 
literarily. Of course, Flints and math errors are relatively easily 
corrected in future editions. Structural integrity (or lack thereof) is 
much more difficult.

> Carol, who thinks that to some extent both the Hallows and the
> Horcruxes are McGuffins

Not that you don't already know what a MacGuffin is, but as a point of 
reference, Wikipedia says a MacGuffin is "a plot device that motivates 
the characters or advances the story.... Its importance is accepted by 
the story's characters, but it does not actually have any effect on the 
story."

More succinctly, movies.ign.com defines a MacGuffin as, "the object that 
drives the story forward and is of vital important to both the heroes 
and villains even if the specifics of the object itself remain obscure 
or are unimportant." (http://movies.ign.com/articles/875/875339p1.html)

As to the Deathly Hallows, I've argued that they the plot not at all; 
rather the opposite. Whether they motivate the characters is perhaps 
also questionable. They seem to motivate Harry to not much more than a 
few unremarkable angst-filled months of indecision. Their effect on DD 
seems to be more significant, at least insofar as they provide the 
catalyst for introducing readers to his backstory. But how important 
that was in terms of driving the story is a question to be discussed.

The horcruxes are where I get confused. Certainly they're more 
significant in the driving-the-plot sense. But the fact that they 
contain pieces of LV's soul hardly seems an obscure or unimportant 
factoid in light of the fact that LV's demise and how to accomplish it 
*is* pretty much the plot.

OTOH, movies.ign.com lists Sauron's One Ring -- and what is the Ring, 
after all, if not the ultimate horcrux? -- as one of the top ten movie 
MacGuffins of all time, so perhaps there's something I'm not 
understanding about this "does not actually have any effect on the plot" 
stuff.

--CJ




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 29 20:08:35 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:08:35 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/Ron's Cloak/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g48iop+q916@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g48q43+6d34@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183516

> > Montavilla47:
> > That only works if we recognize that the image of the hero isn't a 
> > hero.  I'm not sure that most people actually do realize it.  
> 
> Pippin:
> If they don't realize it, then why would they have some mythical
> standard of behavior for him? They'd have to judge him against the
> heroes and heroines of the real world.

Montavilla47:
I'm not really sure what you are saying here.  I think in general people
are willing to cut a fictional hero some slack--as long as he keeps
a few key principles and wins the day.  Especially if what you are 
looking for in the story is primarily entertainment.

Now, again, I can see that JKR sets Harry up to be hero who 
doesn't match the image of the hero.  After all, she does set up
this ill-defined concept of Dark Arts, which apparently serve 
as a litmus test for good and evil.  If you are attracted to Dark
Arts, then you key towards evil.  If you "hate" the Dark Arts, then
you are essentially good, and your impulses towards coercion,
torture, and murder are merely high spirits.

Then, in DH, JKR subverts all that by having Harry use two of the 
three Unforgivable curses--the Darkest of the Dark.   And, if 
her ultimate goal is to screw with her heads, then she's being
quite successful, because I feel thoroughly screwed--down
to Hermione blythely casting "Muffliato" around their tent, when
she refused to allow Harry to cast the curse around her a year
earlier.

But if that were the case, then I think a little commentary by
the author might be helpful.  I'm an adult, and I'm not stupid.
I find this all utterly confusing, which frustrates me as a reader,
and leads me to dislike the book.

It's not like JKR *won't* provide commentary when it suits 
her purpose.  After all, she has Harry remark that Narcissa
is only lying because she wants to get back into the castle 
quickly to look for Draco.  Logically, there is no way for Harry
to know why Narcissa is doing anything.  The only reason for
Harry to give Narcissa *any* motive is so that the author can
assure us that Narcissa Malfoy isn't acting out of altruistic 
motives--or even because she's sick of having Voldemort 
push her around.  She's acting out of the most immediate,
selfish reason handy.


Pippin:
> In the real world, the images of slave owners are on our money and our
> monuments. Schools and cities  and beloved children are named after
> them. Not *because* they were slave owners, of course, at least I hope
> not. But it's something we have to deal with. If all  that is acting
> subconsciously to make us okay with slavery, it's a problem that goes
> *way* beyond Harry Potter. 

Montavilla47:
That's the crux of the problem we had with slavery.  Nobody really 
liked it, not even Jefferson or Washington, who both, if I recall correctly,
manumitted their slaves.  (I think Washington's were actually freed,
but Jefferson still had debts and only some of his were freed?)

But, collectively, we didn't have the will to end slavery when we should
have and that problem built until it became a major cause of our civil 
war.  The repercussions of slavery are still very much present in our
culture.  

Yes, I'm sure that it helped make people "okay" with slavery that 
leading citizens, including the Father of the Country, owned slaves.
Quite a lot of people were okay with owning slaves, or if not 
owning slaves themselves, with other people owning them.  And
they probably had this image in their heads of the slaves being 
happy in their jobs and lack of clothing.  


> Montavilla:
> > 
> > Whether by accident or design, we are left in the last book
> > with no conscience at all. 
> 
> Pippin:
> No conscience but our own, you mean. We're in big trouble if we can't
> tell the difference between right and wrong without an editorial from
> JK Rowling. Certainly we can't be inherently good. 

Montavilla47:
We're not in trouble if we are reading critically.  But I don't think 
the majority of people who read the books do read critically--
especially not children.  

I mean, I never questioned that whole "Son of Adam" thing when
I was a kid and read the Chronicles of Narnia.  As an adult, 
I might have been likely to question why the humans are supposed
to run everything.


> Montavilla:
>  And there's nothing in the book
> > to prevent us from cheering along with everyone else
> > when Harry tortures Amycus.  Indeed, many readers have
> > stated that they did.
> 
> Pippin:
> Who is the everyone else? Nobody cheers in canon, IIRC.
> 
> McGonagall doesn't cheer. She's surprised, and then says it was
> "gallant." That's an equivocal word. It can be used as a synonym for
> "chivalrous" but unlike that word, it can also imply falseness or
> foppishness. Since McGongall follows up by casting a triple patronus
> and then using a curse herself, it's clear she was perfectly capable
> of defending her own honor. Which would make Harry's assumption that
> she needed him to avenge her as much an insult as the spitting. 

Montavilla47:
Interesting reading, but that's not way I interpreted that moment.  I
interpreted it as McGonagall being taken aback initially by Harry's 
use of the curse, then assigning it its true value as a "gallant" action,
and following that up by using an Unforgivable herself which 
puts approval on his action and implicitly giving Harry his place 
as a leader whose actions should be emulated.

This, despite my own feeling that the use of the curse was 
gratuitous, and my own respect for McGonagall as a character.  She
is upheld throughout the series as the "stern, but fair" teacher.
In the absence of Snape (who would have sneered at Harry at that
moment, I hope), she is the least likely person to cut Harry slack for
doing something unbecoming.  Yet, she gives him approval.

Pippin:
> It reminds me a bit of SWM, where James feels virtuous about not using
> "mudblood" while at the same time he's unconsciously insulting Lily by
> implying that her company is for sale. 
> 
> If readers felt good about what Harry did, then they're not opposed to
> torture under any circumstances, despite what they may have thought.
> If you really want to end torture, that's the reality you have to deal
> with. Denial won't get us anywhere, I'm afraid. 

Montavilla47:
The problem I keep running into is that people tend to excuse 
Harry's behavior here because he's under duress, or because Amycus
deserved it.  Like they excuse Marietta's punishment or Umbridge's.
It's all so entertaining.  It feels churlish to keep bringing up that
it's wrong to do these things.

And believe me, not so much on this forum, but on other forums
I have been pointing this out for a couple of years with other posters
vehemently arguing that Marietta, Umbridge, Amycus (and Rita
Skeeter, who is kidnapped and blackmailed) deserved it.  

This is why I don't think a lot of readers "get" that this idea that
JKR is subverting Harry's heroic image.


> > Montavilla47:
> > Where in the book are we asked to forgive the good characters?
> > Other than Dumbledore, who is dead anyway?
> 
> Pippin:
> James,  a hero famous for something he didn't do; Sirius,  for abusing
> Kreacher; Ron, for making cruel jokes; Hermione, for her violent
> temper and her general know-it-all obtuseness. Do I have to go on?

Montavilla47:
I don't get the feeling that JKR thinks James has anything to forgive.
Sirius was mean to Kreacher, but I'm not sure he actually abused 
Kreacher--he just didn't see Kreacher as someone he needed to be
nice to.  As far as Harry's concerned, Sirius's treatment of Kreacher,
while tragically wrong-headed, was never in need of forgiveness.  

All these things you talk about forgiving the characters about are 
outside of the books--something we readers might or might not
pick up on.  Within the books, Ron's cruel jokes are only a problem
in that they interfere with his relationship to Hermone (and that's 
only a problem when they are directed toward Hermione).  They
are less cruel than the jokes of Ginny or the Twins--which are 
never problems at all.  (I can't think of any joke of Ron's that
resulted in bodily harm or required long stays in the hospital 
wing.)

As for Hermione's violent temper and general know-it-allness...
Again, her temper is only a problem in her relationship with 
Ron and only when directed *at* Ron.  And her know-it-allness
is the saving grace of the Trio.  If it wasn't for Hermione knowing
everything, they'd have no idea how to destroy a Horcux, or 
how to escape the wedding, or how to ward their tent, or how to
disguise themselves.  They would have starved for sure without
her mushroom stews.

> > Montavilla47:
> > Exactly, Pippin.  That's who she was talking about and probably what
> > she meant.  But isn't part of her story that given half a chance
> people will do what good they can?
> > 
> > The problem I have with Draco's story is that it's left so ambiguous 
> > that you can easily say that Draco tries to do good and can't, or
> tries to do bad while being pathetically incompetent, or doesn't try
> to do anything at all.
> > 
> > I'm sure that was JKR's intention.  So, I'm going to be unfair and 
> > say I didn't like her authorial choice.
> 
> Pippin:
> Once you've chosen to forgive, what does it matter whether you're
> forgiving Draco for trying to be bad, or for failing at being good, or
> for not trying at all? What does it matter whether Draco himself knows?

Montavilla47:
I'm sorry.  I must have missed the part where Harry chooses to 
forgive Draco.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 29 22:21:34 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:21:34 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/Ron's Cloak/Slytherins are Bad
In-Reply-To: <g48q43+6d34@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g491te+u6gm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183517

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
The problem I keep running into is that people tend to excuse
Harry's behavior here because he's under duress, or because Amycus
deserved it. Like they excuse Marietta's punishment or Umbridge's.
It's all so entertaining. It feels churlish to keep bringing up that
it's wrong to do these things.
<SNIP>

Alla:

After I read this paragraph I feel as if I am supposed to be 
apologetic for bringing up the idea that I do want to 
justice 
to triumph with whatever means is possible, with whatever means plot 
allows.
I most definitely one of the people who thinks that Amicus deserved 
it AND that it is wrong to do 
that too. Not because it is entertaining, no,although sometimes it 
is, but in none of the cases that you mentioned to me, to me it is 
carmic justice, that's all.

As I said many times, if in one story author would have the luxury to 
show us legal punishment of all bad guys, sure, I would love that.


But I think JKR had plenty of other things to talk besides telling us 
in details that every bad guy went to Azkaban or was killed or 
whatever.

Therefore I will take ANY bad thing that falls on the head of the bad 
guy, not because it is fun ( although sometimes it is), or because I 
necessarily approve of good 
guys doing those things. Believe me, if I like when something is done 
to bad guy it really does not necessarily translate in me approving 
good guy doing it.

I mean sometimes I approve, but not always.

So yes, I think that Umbridge deserved all of it and more. I think 
that 
Amicus deserved all of it and more, with the qualifier that I would 
have enjoyed just as much seeing a trial of his and him getting a 
life 
in Azkaban without parol. Umbridge does not even get a qualifier, the 
more pain is inflicted on her, the better as far as I am concerned. I 
just believe that sometimes in stories 
like 
this full blown legalities cannot be shown because of plot.

Do I think Marietta deserved it? Yeah, I do, sorry, with the 
qualifier 
that she deserved shorter term of punishment than she got.

Do I excuse Harry's behavior here? I went back and forth on it 
several 
times and came to an opinion that I do not **excuse** it, but I 
certainly understand why he did it.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
If readers felt good about what Harry did, then they're not opposed to
torture under any circumstances, despite what they may have thought.
If you really want to end torture, that's the reality you have to deal
with. Denial won't get us anywhere, I'm afraid.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Readers who feel good about what Harry did are not opposed to torture 
under any circumstances? Does this  assumption also applies to the 
readers like me who may not feel good about what Harry did, but whose 
sense of justice is satisfied by what Harry did? Hmmm, I guess that 
means that I do feel good about what Harry did, even if I do not feel 
good about **how** Harry did it. I would much prefer for example if 
not seeing Amicus in Azkaban, seeing somebody beat the crap out of 
him in combat or somebody killing him in combat. But do I want to see 
him suffer? Yes, you bet.

See, I do want to see the pain of students who suffered from Amicus 
and his lovely sister avenged. I do want Umbridge pay for all she 
inflicted on the Hogwarts and Harry in particular. I really am not 
feeling particularly bloodfirsty about Marietta anymore, but I do not 
think 
she should have gotten off scott free either, since I do 
believe that she placed the futures of the members of DA in grave 
danger.
 And in the fictional reality, I will take what I can get, really. 

Characters cannot get hurt, but I want good guys to triumph, and I am 
not obligated to feel that bad fictional guys deserve equal 
protection under the laws.

JMO,

Alla







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Jun 29 22:51:12 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:51:12 -0000
Subject: The reason I read (was Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g46iku+hrc2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g493l0+na6u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183518

 
> Geoff: 
> Looking at Carol's comments, I must first say that the reason I 
read 
> any fiction is to enjoy it. So with Harry Potter and his story. I 
read the 
> books for pleasure; I am prepared to apply the willing suspension 
of 
> disbelief, enjoy the worlds of the characters and not agonise over 
> inconsistencies. I am not by nature a nitpicker in this sense 
although 
> being a member of HPFGU for very nearly five years has drawn me 
> into this behaviour on occasions.

Potioncat:
Reading the HP books was pure pleasure for me. Dissecting them was 
lots of fun too. But you know, once you dissect something and step 
back from it, it's not the same as it was. As much as I've enjoyed 
picking scenes apart, I've also had a few moments in the books that I 
don't enjoy as much now, as I first did. (This is sort of like eating 
a big piece of pie after Christmas dinner. You really enjoy it at the 
time, but you sort of wish you hadn't had it?)(Maybe the images of 
dissection and eating pie don't really belong together, do they?)

The twins is one example. The twins are one example...this is one for 
the OT grammar experts.

Take the twins--- please!

I really, really liked the twins. Then we looked at the ton-tongue-
taffy incident and the spider-teddybear incident and the booing young 
Slytherin incident--pretty soon they didn't seem so likable. But as a 
bit of time since our strong discussions about them has passed, I'm 
starting to like them again. They originally came across as fun-
loving joksters and I think that's what I want to like about them.


>Geoff:
> Perhaps some of the group ? maybe even most of the group ? prefer 
> to indulge in inspecting the structure of books with a fine 
toothcomb 
> and checking to see if the nuts and bolts are the right size but, 
to my 
> way of thinking, this can destroy the pleasure, freshness and charm 
of 
> a book. Inconsistencies do creep in. 

Potioncat:
I think we've seen that all of us have different inconsistency 
thresholds. I think most of us started out looking for clues and 
treasures. The word-plays and bits of histories that are slipped into 
the story are so much fun. I wouldn't have seen many of them, if 
other readers hadn't pointed them out. But by this point, we've found 
lots of flints and errors. And we're so eager to discuss everything, 
that we discuss them too.
 

> 

>Geoff:
> One of my favourite books is "To Serve Them All My Days" by R. F. 
> Delderfield whi<snip> Delderfield has been very cavalier with his 
time lines and often I sigh 
> because the dates do not tie in. Does this detract from my 
enjoyment? 
> Not really. 

Potioncat:
I read this on your recommendation several years ago, and really 
enjoyed it. I would recommend it as well, but some of the 
inconsistencies confused the heck out of me.



>Geoff: 
> In general, I like the HP series of books, some better than others. 
> There are some parts which I prefer to skip but, let's face, there 
are  
> parts of LOTR which I find equally as heavy to get through as some 
> of the camping scenes in DH. Whatever the shortcomings of some 
> of the action of the last book, I still never fail to feel uplifted 
by the 
> last book from about the chapter on "The Forest Again" to the end 
> of "The Flaw in the Plan".

Potioncat:
Well, no matter how depressed DH left me, the overall series had an 
uplifting point. It also had to do with trying to do the right thing.

> Geoff:
> As I have previously written, if I do have a serious grouse, it is 
with 
> the Epilogue. It leaves a lot of unconnected dots and also closes a 
> number of avenues where we can speculate in the privacy of our own 
> imaginations about the future activities of our heroes (and anti-
heroes). 

Potioncat:
I've recently read 2 books that include epilogues by another writer. 
They are real gems because they give closure to the story yet leave 
the characters' futures wide open. I wish this epilogue had done more 
of that. At the same time, I think this is how JKR made her peace 
with Harry.

>Geoff:
> There, I feel much better for writing all that. My apologies to 
those 
> of you who don't!
> :-)


Potioncat:
I'm just glad you're posting again! Not that I think anyone should 
stop posting about topics of interest to them, but I see where this 
post came from. What I'm not sure of, is where you hoped to see this 
idea go.


Potioncat, not at all sure I picked up on the real point of Geoff's 
post, because I had sort of dropped out of the original thread, but 
this was my reaction anyway.





From kersberg at chello.nl  Sun Jun 29 17:24:04 2008
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:24:04 -0000
Subject: Resolutions/ Draco/Are we being too critical?
In-Reply-To: <g45p4g+qqmj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g48gfk+t3dn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183519

--- <montavilla47 at ...> wrote:
  And he's balding,
> so there's a bit of Karmic justice still going on and wake-up call
> for the fangirls who like his blonde hair.
>

Kamion:
Draco's receding hair could as well be a wake-up call to the Draco
fangirl ( and boys, don't forget the fanboys), because JKR did not like
Draco's fandomstatus very much
as a gibe to the actor who played him. You only have to look at a
picture of Tom Felton and his older brother to know that Tom will not
have a lush head of hair by the time he is 30.

ELFY NOTE:

Guys, if you want to talk about Tom Felton, please do it on movie list. Thanks :)

Here is the link:


http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/?yguid=112798769



From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 30 00:52:28 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:52:28 -0000
Subject: Lily's Letter was Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g48c3g+77tb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g49aoc+uqaj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183520

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

> I read it the way you did at first and it confused me too. It wasn't
> until I heard Jim Dale's reading that I realized there's another
> interpretation.


zanooda:

Well, I listened to Jim Dale, and his reading didn't change much for
me :-). But I think I understand what you mean. You want to say that
when Lily writes "Harry is not old enough to know it's his birthday"
she doesn't mean *this* particular birthday. It's more like a general
statement, kind of like "A child this age is unable to distinguish
between a regular day and a birthday (or Christmas, or Forth of July,
or any other holiday :-))". 

If that's what you mean, I agree that it's possible to understand it
this way (I think :-)), and thank you for giving me at least *some*
explanation, although I admit that I still don't like it, sorry :-).
Having an explanation (even if it doesn't satisfy me completely) is
much better than not having any :-). But nothing can change the fact
that Lily's letter still sounds like "right-after-the-birthday" to me
:-). If it was October, wouldn't she at least mention Sirius's long
absence? There is nothing there, nothing at all. Where is "I'm so glad
you are safely back", where is "We were worried about you"? 


> Pippin wrote:
 
> It makes a lot of other things easier to explain if Sirius had been
> away for a good while, for instance, why the Fidelius wasn't
> implemented sooner, and why Sirius didn't seem to be aware that
> suspicion had fallen on him. 


zanooda:

If Sirius was on a long mission and only just returned in October, why
didn't he bring the present himself? He was back, wasn't he? Why not
come and check on his friends after such a long absence? It still
seems to me that Sirius couldn't come to Harry's birthday, but he sent
the broomstick instead, right then, in August, and not three months later.





From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Jun 30 03:36:56 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:36:56 -0000
Subject: several short replies on various things, followed by a long reply about Salazar
Message-ID: <g49kco+l6ni@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183521

CJ wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183391>:

<< Which brings to mind the question: what happened to LV's wand? >>

Wormtail found it in the wreckage of the Potter house. I think he kept
it with him after that and brought it to Voldemort in Albania, but my
recollection is that Rowling said he hid it nearby, and retrieved it
when he brought Voldemort back to Britain. I think Wormtail used
Voldemort's wand after leaving his own in that gas-line explosion, but
the Priori Incantatem in GoF left out his day to day spells for
dramatic effect.

Montavilla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183415>:

<< Percy really had nothing to apologize to his brothers for--the
argument wasn't with them but with his father. They were only involved
because they insisted on taking sides. >>

It seems that Rowling didn't agree with you. I don't know if she
thought he needed to apologize to his father at all, but it seems she
set up the Twins as the judges as well as enforcers of who is allowed
to associate with decent people, so they're the ones whose forgiveness
he needs.

Pippin wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183378>:

<< Do you think Snape would have been better off Sorted into another
House? Do you think he'd have been accepted there despite his
neediness and his grinding sense of inferiority? >>

He should have been in Ravenclaw, with his brains. His fellow
Ravenclaws would have admired his intelligence and knowledge, and all
wanted him as a study partner, and treated any pro-Dark Arts
statements he made as intellectual propositions to be discussed. 

Ravenclaws aren't saints, but they wouldn't have picked on him like
they picked on Luna, because he didn't drift around murmuring
idealistic nonsense. He would have been accepted *at least* as well in
Ravenclaw as in Slytherin. Some people from every House joined the
Death Eaters, so I can't say that being in Ravenclaw would have kept
him from making that particular big mistake. But there were Ravenclaws
he could have been friends with without having to choose between them
and Lily. 

Let's drift off on a digression about life in Ravenclaw House at that
time - of five Ravenclaw boys in one dorm, did they hate each other,
two versus three, about who was a Mudblood-lover and a goody-two-shoes
and who was not merely a criminal but a sadist? The Muggleborn boy
might have been afraid to go to sleep at night lest the boy who posted
newspaper clippings about Lord Voldemort might kill him in his sleep?

Pippin wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183452>:

<< If he didn't care about the students, why remain headmaster when
Voldemort was taking over? It would have been far easier to organize
resistance to Voldemort as Minister of Magic. >>

Maybe that's exactly what Dumbledore thought, and he really was trying
to become Minister, and Fudge was absolutely correct to suspect him in
OoP, which was not useful toward defeating LV.

Or maybe DD, having decided that he could not be trusted to be
Minister because of his power-abuse, never re-considered whether the
advantage to the war against LV of DD being Minister was worth that
risk. It is clear that he never considered whether he could CONTROL
his power-abuse enough to be a good Minister, just as he never
considered whether he was abusing his power as Headmaster and as
leader of the Order.

<< Yes, Dumbledore had a material as well as a moral reason for
planning to let Snape to kill him instead of Draco. But that plan was
spoiled when he lost the wand. At the moment on the tower when
Dumbledore decides to talk Draco out of killing him, the plan looks
completely trashed. >>

The part of the plan about making Snape into Voldemort's favorite,
most trusted, servant was not spoiled by loss of the Elder Wand.

Rlaw wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183458>:

<< Greyback hopes to gain a seat of power (so to speak) and go around
turning others into werewolves and raise his werewolf army to hate all
muggles and non-pure blood witches and wizard. >>

I can't think of any reason why Greyback would consider pure-blood
witches and wizards less tasty snacks than Muggleborn ones. I think he
hates ALL non-werewolves and, in the long run, would like to bite
Lucius, Narcissa, Bellatrix, and Lord Voldemort himself, and make them
his servants in the werewolf army.

Alla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183464>:

<< And we have that famous quote by Sirius "Yes, but the world isn't
split into good people and death eaters" - p.302. Funnily, he is not
saying that the world is not split into good people and evil people. I
wonder. >>

I never wondered, I just assumed he was saying that just because
Umbridge is evil does not mean she is serving Lord Voldemort. Not in
the book, because there was no possiblity of allying with Umbridge
against LV, but here in discussion, it might raise the question of
allying with an evil Dark Wizard against LV (or with Stalin against
Hitler).

Zanooda wrore in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183468>:

<< back then I didn't know what to think - did DD meet with Sirius
behind the veil and used his mirror to look after Harry <bg>? >>

That's what I thought, at least the first time it happened, which made
me annoyed that it wasn't Sirius.

Pippin wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183513>:

<< No one had the primary motivation of wanting to harm others. Even
Voldemort wanted most to stay alive. >>

This is a forbidden "I disagree" post. I deeply believe that Voldemort
wanted to hurt all and sundry more than he wanted to avoid death. He
might have succeeded in avoiding death otherwise.

Potioncat wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183518>:

<< the spider-teddybear incident >>

If Ron was 3 at the time, then Fred was 5 and didn't even have a wand.
I am absolutely certain that turning Ron's teddy into a huge ugly
spider was spontaneous child magic, when the child's emotions are so
strong that some magic just *happens* with no intentional act by the
child. Like Harry turning his teacher's wig blue.

THE FOUNDERS

Betsy Hp wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183329>:

<< I still have *no idea* why Salazar was ever invited into the
original fold, >>

In the past I have suggested that the other Three thought Salazar was
less dangerous inside their group and school where they could keep
their eyes on him, than outside where none of them would know what he
was up to. I don't believe Godric and Salazar were the best of friends
despite the Hat having said so - at best, they ACTED friendly while
working together. 

Drifting toward fanfic (is that allowed now that canon is pretty much
closed?), I even theorized that Godric and Helga decided to start a
school as a way of preventing Salazar from collecting ignorant
Muggleborns and teaching them to be his vassals.

<< and I *certainly* don't understand why Slytherin House was allowed
to remain after he rubbed his true colors (never a big secret to begin
with, per the Sorting Hat) into everyone's face. >>

I think the four Founders made a magical contract that the School
would contain the four Houses, so when Salazar sulked away, the other
Three were UNABLE to close down his House without collapsing the school.

In MY Potterverse, Salazar, altho' evil, was not exceptionally racist.
(Like Steve bboyminn's
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183447>)

Professor Binns said: "They built this castle together, far from
prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic was feared by common
people, and witches and wizards suffered much persecution. (snip)
Slytherin wished to be more selective about the students admitted to
Hogwarts. He believed that magical learning should be kept within
all-magic families. He disliked taking students of Muggle parentage,
believing them to be untrustworthy."

In a time when wizarding folk were hiding from Muggles because they
were (rightly) scared of Muggles, Salazar objected to taking students
of Muggle parentage because he believed them to be -- not dirty, not
less magically powerful, not less able to learn magic, not  less able
to fit into wizarding culture -- UNTRUSTWORTHY. 

In my mind, Salazar feared that students would tell their Muggle
parents and/or siblings either the location of Hogwarts, or
information about magic. Information which, if known to the larger
Muggle community, could be used to launch an attack on Hogwarts itself
or on wizarding households. To me, it was not their Muggle 'blood'
that made them untrustworthy, but their intimate relationship with one
or more Muggles.

To me, that's discrimination, but not racism. Racism would be like
'all Muggleborns are liars; they can't stop themselves'. I think there
is room to argue whether fearing that children might be loyal to their
parents is prejudice or not. The actual racism, such as the word
Mudblood, came along later, when the wizarding folk were feeling even
more besieged. 

(The more they were in danger from Muggles - scared of Muggles -
hiding from Muggles - inferior to Muggles in terms of power, the more
they talked up their alleged superiority to Muggles. They do have a
superiority, in terms of something they can do that we can't, i.e.
magic, but no reason to exclude Muggleborn wizards and witches from
that particular superiority.)

Zara wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183332>:

<< In Salazar's day, and even in Harry's, there was nothing illegal
about the notion that certain families were better and more important
than others. Nor about the suspicion that the best witches and wizards
were descended from those families, or that Muggleborns are naturally
less talented. And these notions were widespread within society, so a
wild-eyed reformer wishing to close Slytherin House and stigmatize
such views at a later date, would meet stiff resistance from a sizable
portion of the population and of the membership of Hogwarts' Board of
Governors. And all these reasonably popular and completely legal
political views, are only one of the things Slytherin House is for. >>

This is a forbidden 'I agree' reply.

Pippin wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183342>:

<< And I know of no parents who would want their children
indoctrinated against their beliefs. >>

This is a forbidden but deeply heart-felt 'I agree' reply. IIRC, years
ago listies were asking why Dumbledore (whom we thought, at that time,
cared about his students) didn't try to teach the Hogwarts students to
be less prejudiced, and I often replied that many of the parents are
in favor of prejudice and would object to the school teaching beliefs
with which the parents disagreed.





From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 30 07:52:13 2008
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:52:13 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
In-Reply-To: <g3uucb+gink@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g4a3bd+dnti@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183522

Discussion Questions:
1) What did you think of Harry's story, that he is a Slytherin
named Vernon Dudley whose father works at the Ministry?

Doddie here:

Probably one of the most lame/brilliant things Harry has done..

1.  I'm quite sure that most ww folks know about the Dursley's by 
now...Harry got lucky by being captured by those who were on the 
fringes of WW society anyhow..

2) Greyback takes the party to Malfoy Manor rather than
summoning Voldemort himself. Harry surmises this is because Greyback
is not a marked Death Eater. What do you think?

I have to agree with Harry...he has more than an assumption...he 
does still have that little soul bit of voldy's in him..and we did 
not see Greyback on the tower until after the cave in...

3) Narcissa Malfoy seems to have some authority: Greyback and
his men defer to her, and she decides to let them in. What is her
status, do you think? Which events of this chapter helped to form
that opinion?

Narcissa has all the authority her hubby lost and Draco gained 
earlier...I'm quite sure that if Lucius had never invited Voldy to 
their home...that he'd never be able to enter it..(hence we never 
see Voldy in Grimauld Place)...

The events of this chapter....we see Cissy curtial Lucius ..but 
never Bella...I just see Cissy do and prevent any action of her 
loved ones...

4) What did you think of Draco in the scene where he is asked to
identify Harry?

I think for once..he took a leaf out of his mother's book...and gave 
no helpful hand to Voldemort..

5) Lucius, Bella, and Greyback all argue over who should get
what credit for the capture. What does each hope to gain?

Lucius: wants a wand

Bella: wants sweet loving of Voldemort

Greyback:  wants acceptance into Wizarding society..

6) Did you learn anything knew about/form any new opinions of
Bellatrix in this chapter?

I learned Bella wanted Love of Voldemort above ALL!

7) What did you think prompted Bella's extreme fear when she
believed the Sword of Gryffindor was stolen from her vault?

I think Bella may have wanted to contact Snape IMMEDIATELY!!

8) What did you think was the explanation for Dumbledore's eye
in the broken mirror?

I never thought it was DD's eye...

9) "May your loyalty never waver again", Voldemort said to Peter
after giving him the silver hand in GoF. Now we know what he meant.
What did you think of Peter's death? Did you like or dislike the way
it ended his story? Do you see any special meaning in it?

This was my turning point...not for Snape, or Voldy, or 
Pettigrew....but for DD... DD expected loyalties to waver..

I liked Pettigrew's ending..as both Harry and Ron did try to save 
him...as they had more than one lesson in loyalty at this 
point...Here we have a prime example of no second chances from Voldy 
at this point..

10) Do you think, when Peter let Harry go, he experienced a
sincere regret for his past actions? Why or why not?

Yes Peter had sincere regret...(I believe he sincerely wanted to 
switch sides at this point if not before/earlier)..

11) Why do you think Griphook lied to Bella?

Because Griphook knew there was no hope in dealing with one so 
obsessed..(It speaks volumes about his subsequent behaviors).

12) What did you think was going on with Voldemort in this
chapter? What ideas did you have concerning the identity of the old
man in the tower?

Voldemort was distracted by the deathly Hallows. I thought the old 
man in the tower was Grindewald..

13) Can someone explain to me why Dobby's death is the one death
in this book that originally did, and still does, move me to tears,
even though I always found him annoying?

Dobby was the first person outside the mainstream WW Harry saved...

Dobby worshipped Harry before anyone else..(besides us readers)..

In all honesty.. house elves represent fans that are readers more 
than Harry fans in the books...

Hence the death of Dobby is representative of the death of 
readers....once Dobby died..we knew, as readers....we're fast 
approaching the end.

JKR is really that good...





From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Mon Jun 30 12:27:14 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (jerrichase)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:27:14 -0000
Subject: Deaths affecting Harry
In-Reply-To: <009b01c8d886$e66030a0$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <g4ajf2+cksr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183523

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" 
<k12listmomma at ...> wrote:
> So, the most sad death for me is Hedwig. She dies caged up, 
helpless, and 
> her death is totally meaningless. We see her tired of being caged 
up, and 
> Harry belittling the fact that she's impatient to be free again. 
She didn't 
> even have the ability to duck and dodge, to flee or try and save 
herself. 
> Shelley

I agree that this was a very difficult death for me to accept.  And 
an added reason is that having the real, caged Hedwig with the real 
Harry, but fake, caged Hedwig's with the fake Harry's was a flaw in 
the plan.  The differences between a real owl, who can move and hoot 
and a stuffed one, who just sits on a perch in the cage seems to be 
pretty obvious.  Not that it is a difference certain to be spotted, 
but one that could have been spotted.  Far better to send Hedwig away 
in some way, and to have everyone carry an empty cage or no cage at 
all.  

Since having a real Hedwig was a flaw in the plan to have seven 
identical Harry Potter's, then her death was especially nasty on 
JKR's part.  (And I thought at my first reading that Hedwig's 
flapping or the fake Hedwig's lack of motion would be the factor 
which would tell the DE's which was the real Harry, before the group 
had left the ground, as soon as I read the words "owl cages, each 
containing a stuffed snowy owl" on page 52 of the U.S. edition of DH.)

Jerri




From kersberg at chello.nl  Mon Jun 30 13:07:57 2008
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:07:57 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
In-Reply-To: <g3uucb+gink@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g4alrd+l6el@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183524

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" <zgirnius at ...> wrote:
>(-----)

> Discussion Questions:
(------)
2) Greyback takes the party to Malfoy Manor rather than
> summoning Voldemort himself. Harry surmises this is because
Greyback
> is not a marked Death Eater. What do you think?
(-----)

Kamion

The fact that Greyback is not a marked DE, was for me an indication
that Draco himself was not Marked either, in spite of what is
suggested by Harry's very biased observations at Madame Malkin's. In
HBP Voldemort is official still anathema and would make no sense to
have an agent with a secret destructive mission so easliy marked.
Also was Draco not yet worthy of being enlisted in the inner circle
of Death Eaters, his father had loaded the family name with shame
just recently and he himself did not earn much Housepoints on the
Hogwarts  Express home in standing up to Mudbloods and Halfbloods.
He first had to earn his spurs by eliminating Dumbledore before
receiving the honor badge of the skull&serpent.
Futhermore in the period it really matters - as evidence for Harry
that Draco is more up to no good as usual - the Dark Mark is never
shown. After DHP it becomes irrelevant; the Malfoys on the whole are
disgraced persons in the Dark camp and suffer the consequences, they
look more like POW's then allies.
Greyback not Marked means not every in the Dark camp was regarded
wothy of being Marked and privileged to call upon Voldemort, nothing
indicated that Draco earned that privilege after HBP.





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 30 15:48:20 2008
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:48:20 -0000
Subject: Lily's Letter was Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g49aoc+uqaj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g4av85+u4jh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183525

> zanooda:
> 
> If Sirius was on a long mission and only just returned in October, 
> why didn't he bring the present himself? He was back, wasn't he?
> Why not come and check on his friends after such a long absence? It
> still seems to me that Sirius couldn't come to Harry's birthday,
> but he sent the broomstick instead, right then, in August, and not
> three months later.

Jen: It could be a situation where Sirius sent the broom because he 
couldn't be there for the party but Lily didn't get around to 
thanking him until Oct.  I don't find it hard to believe a new mom of 
an active one-year old didn't get her thank you letter out until 
three months later. :D  She was busy cleaning up messes made by Harry 
learning to ride the broom & dealing with her restless husband, who 
she was stuck with non-stop, hehe.  Plus, bachelor Sirius was likely 
in his element on Order missions and wouldn't wonder why Lily never 
wrote that thank you note!

Evidence against that idea is why Lily didn't mention the thank you 
coming 3 months late.  Not that she had to explain it but it would 
make the timing of the letter match up with other evidence.  And 
wouldn't Sirius have had more contact with them?  He'd at least like 
to know how the Potters were faring and that Harry received the 
broom.  Unless the thank you letter was a formality only after Sirius 
was thanked earlier in person. 

My last thought is why should one detail take so much discussion from 
readers to figure out?!?  It shouldn't imo.  The letter should be 
clear, having a date on the letter for instance to signify to the 
reader when events are occurring, since what's in the letter is 
important for backstory (among other things).  Then nothing in the 
letter or after should refute the date.  It seems easy enough to me 
speaking as an armchair writer/editor/copyeditor! ;)

Jen




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 30 19:40:09 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:40:09 -0000
Subject: Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)
In-Reply-To: <g3unj9+l78u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g4bcqp+kmhm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183526

Lynda wrote: 
<snip> The Power of Blood was important, but the Power of Love even
moreso. It's the key to the books.
> 
> Julie:
> Here I agree with you, Lynda. While Lily's blood "seals" the
protection Harry receives both at Privet Drive and against Voldemort,
I do think her love for Harry was the element that sealed the magic.
Yes, Snape's love also gave her the choice to live, or to die for
Harry. But it was Lily's willingless to sacrifce herself that sealed
the magic in her blood. At least that's my interpretation, and since
how the protection actually worked is never spelled out, I'm sticking
with it. In the end it was the Power of Love doubled (Snape's and
Lily's) that saved Harry.
> 
> Julie, wondering if maybe this realization is why Harry named his
second child after Snape ;-)

Carol responds:

Just one additional note here. Harry's self-sacrifice duplicates his
mother's but on a larger scale. He willingly goes to what he thinks
will be his death is an act of love for the whole WW, specifically the
staff and students and townspeople who are fighting against Voldemort
at that particular moment, and just as Lily's act of love for her son
protected him like some super-Protego, causing the AK to ricochet onto
its caster, Harry's act of love shields the people around him and
makes Voldemort's spells ineffectual (as they ought to have been in
any case since he wasn't the Elder Wand's master, but, oh, well!).

Carol, agreeing that the theme of love extends beyond the blood
protection and that it's tied in with self-sacrifice





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 30 20:05:50 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:05:50 -0000
Subject: Did you LIKE Snape?
In-Reply-To: <g3uoqv+1rse@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g4beau+vsc6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183527

Mike wrote:
> Hanging around with future Death Eaters, in fact, fancying himself
as the same. If he had been a dullert or a bully I could forgive him
for being seduced to the dark side. I think that's what happened to 
> Regulus. <snip>

Carol responds:
First, I'm snipping portions of this post that I vehemently disagree
with but which are simply a matter of personal taste and feelings. I
have a similar feeling of revulsion for MWPP which I can't be argued
out of because it's exactly that, a feeling.

That aside, are you saying that you consider Regulus a dullard or a
bully? I think he was merely a boy who rather unthinkingly adopted his
parents' values and who saw himself as the good and dutiful son, in
contrast to his rebellious and ungrateful brother. (He would have
agreed with Kreacher, I think, that Sirius was "an ungrateful little
swine who broke his mother's heart"). Regulus's collection of
Voldemort press cuttings resemble a Muggle teenager's press clippings
of a favorite rock star or actor. Clearly, he didn't fully understand
what his hero represented until it affected him personally (and the
same can be said for Severus Snape).
 

> Mike:
> All part of my reason to despise the Snape at the end of PoA, from 
the Shack onward to the end. When he bound and gagged Lupin, refusing
to listen to the other side, that was it for me. Harry showed more
maturity in that situation than Snape did.

Carol responds:

Now, granted, he was too incensed and too convinced that Sirius Black
had betrayed Lily (and intended to kill Harry) to listen to reason,
but that's not the reason he bound and gagged Lupin. He did that as a
safety precaustion because it was a full-moon night and Lupin, who had
forgotten or neglected to take his potion, was about to transform into
a werewolf.

Mike: 
> Some people have pointed out that Snape conjured a stretcher for 
Sirius too. That he was saving him from the Dementors. That's not 
what all his ensuing conversations showed. The Dementors were gone 
when he conjured those stretchers, of course he wasn't going to leave
Sirius out there where he might come to and make his escape. He 
brought him up to the castle with the others, saw him locked up with
the intent of bringing a Dementor up to him to have his soul sucked.
He even asked Fudge if it was going to happen right away. So why 
shouldn't I believe that was his intent in the Shack, to have Sirius 
soul sucked?
> 
> I repeat, I DON'T CARE if he thought Sirius was guilty and that
Remus was helping him. He was aiding and abetting a miscarriage of
justice that would result in a man becoming "worse than dead" based
mostly on a boyhood grudge. That's the way I read it.

Carol responds:

But as we now know, the boyhood grudge, however lingering, was a red
herring. DH makes it clear that he loved Lily, and in PoA, he would
have believed, with Dumbledore, that Sirius Black had been the Secret
Keeper who betrayed Lily to her death. Moreover, he took Sirius Black
to the proper authority, Fudge, who would administer "justice."

Meanwhile, he took the three unconscious children to the hospital wing
where they could be tended. Had he not done so, they would have been
prey to any Dementors who thought it safe to return and/or to the
werewolf who was roaming the grounds. And (though he didn't know it,
of course) had he not taken HRH to the hospital wing, Harry and
Hermione could not have used the Time Turner to return and save
Buskbeak, Sirius, and themselves.

Carol, who sees the matter very differently but is merely presenting
her own view, not arguing with Mike's feelings on the matter






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 30 21:38:30 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:38:30 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
In-Reply-To: <g3uucb+gink@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g4bjom+6rr8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183528

Zara wrote:
>
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter
23, Malfoy Manor <snip>

Carol responds:
Great summary, Zara! I especially liked the way you placed all of the
old man's (Grindelwald's) remarks together rather than interspersing
them throughout the chapter. 

> Discussion Questions:
> 1) What did you think of Harry's story, that he is a Slytherin 
named Vernon Dudley whose father works at the Ministry?

Carol responds:

I'm deliberately not reading anyone else's responses before presenting
my own.

Harry's "Vernon Dudley" was certainly smarter than Hermione's use of
Penelope Clearwater as a pseudonym. (Hello, Hermione! Have you
forgotten that Penelope was one of the Muggle-borns Petrified by the
Basilisk?) I think harry's response was part inspiration, part luck.
If he had said "Dudley Dursley" instead of merely "Dudley," which the
Snatchers take as a surname, he wouldn't have had the momentary
reprieve caused by the coincidence of a Dudley actually happening to
work at the MoM. (I doubt that any Dursleys work there!) And he could
be reasonably certain that no "Vernon Dudley" would be on the
Snatchers' list. OTOH, he was taking a chance to identify himself as a
Slytherin. If any of the Snatchers actually attended Hogwarts in
recent years or had Pure-Blood connections, they might know that there
weren't any Dudleys in Slytherin. Ahat I *didn* like, though, was that
nonsense about the Slytherin common room containing skulls. Surely
Harry and Ron would have noticed those skulls when they visited the
common room in their second year and the narrator would have mentioned
them? Evidently, JKR forgot to check her fictional facts again. Maybe
she had the Slytherin common mixed up in her mind with Borgin and
Burkes, first described in the same book (CoS).

BTW, I never realized how very British the Dursleys' names are until I
heard Vernon and Dudley combined in a single name.
> 
> 2) Greyback takes the party to Malfoy Manor rather than summoning
Voldemort himself. Harry surmises this is because Greyback is not a
marked Death Eater. What do you think? 

Carol responds:

I think he's exactly right. There's no reason for Fenrir not to summon
Voldemort directly if he can do so, and Fenrir's behavior makes clear
that he's almost slipped and revealed to the Snatchers that he's not a
real DE. Werewolf or not, his prestige and authority would be
considerably reduced if his lackeys realized that he was a lackey,
too. Also, unlike Snape and Yaxley, he can't walk right through that
gate. He has to state his business.
> 
> 3) Narcissa Malfoy seems to have some authority: Greyback and his
men defer to her, and she decides to let them in. What is her status,
do you think? Which events of this chapter helped to form that opinion?

Carol responds:
She's Wizarding aristocracy, a member of an old Pure-Blood family and
married to another Pure-Blood who happens to be a Death Eater (as is
her sister). They would have no idea of the Malfoys' fall from grace.
After all, their home is Voldemort's headquarters. And Narcissa's
behavior, very much the haughty lady of the manor, would reinforce
that opinion. It's all very medieval: she's of the ruling class and
they're just serfs to her. Whether they're Half-Bloods or renegade
Muggle-borns or even Squibs, they're unqualified for some reason to
become Death Eaters. Both Narcissa and the Snatchers, including the
werewolf Greyback (tainted by his affliction regardless of his blood
status), are very much aware of their inferiority to her. Lucius's
wealth would in itself be daunting to men who earn a living by turning
in their fellow wizards for galleons.
> 
> 4) What did you think of Draco in the scene where he is asked to 
identify Harry?

Carol responds:

Poor Draco, who has found out that being a DE isn't glorious at all
and who has no stomach for killing and torture yet lacks the courage
to lie outright to his parents and his aunt, all of them in varying
degrees still loyal to Voldemort. What's interesting to me is the
contrast between the troubled Draco, struggling with pangs of
conscience but weak-willed, and his self-serving father, who only
wants to regain his lost status as Voldemort's right-hand man and who
has no concern for HRH and no qualms of conscience whatever. At least
Draco knows now that he doesn't have the makings of a Death Eater. 
>
> 5) Lucius, Bella, and Greyback all argue over who should get what
credit for the capture. What does each hope to gain?

Carol:
Greyback wants gold; Bella wants Voldemort's affection and approval;
Lucius wants his lost authority and status. (Why he doesn't snatch a
Snatcher's wand, having lost his own, I have no idea.)
> 
> 6) Did you learn anything knew about/form any new opinions of 
Bellatrix in this chapter?

Carol:

I was pretty sure that she had charge of one of the Horcruxes ("He has
trusted me with his most precious. . . .") without, of course, knowing
what it was, so that didn't surprise me. I knew that she was ruthless
and sadistic and powerful. I suppose I was surprised by the extent of
her panic. But, no. I didn't learn anything new or form any new
opinions of her that I can recall.
> 
> 7) What did you think prompted Bella's extreme fear when she 
believed the Sword of Gryffindor was stolen from her vault?

Carol responds:

That she had a Horcrux in the vault where the fake Sword of Gryffindor
was stored.
> 
> 8) What did you think was the explanation for Dumbledore's eye in
the broken mirror?

Carol:

I don't remember, to be truthful. I don't think I thought of
Aberforth, even though I knew he'd be in the story. (BTW, did he just
*happen* to be looking into the mirror those two times when Harry saw
his eye? What a lucky coincidence! And can he see Harry in it by
calling his name, assuming that Harry happens to have the mirror in
his hand? Did he just see the inside of Harry's mokeskin pouch most of
the time, just as Phineas Nigellus saw the inside of Hermione's beaded
bag? I'd give up after awhile if that were the case!) And BTW,
Aberforth's eye in the mirror gives new meaning to the expression
"keeping an eye on the situation"!
> 
> 9) "May your loyalty never waver again", Voldemort said to Peter 
after giving him the silver hand in GoF. Now we know what he meant. 
What did you think of Peter's death? Did you like or dislike the way
it ended his story? Do you see any special meaning in it?

Carol responds:

i saw it as ironic. The first faint stirring of remorse leads to
Wormtail's death, in marked contrast to Snape's adult lifetime of
remorse and expiation. I expected a bit more from the life debt (which
I realize is a fan-coined expression, but the concept is clearly
stated in PoA), But if you put together Wormtail's debt to Harry and
LV's "May your loyalty never waver!" which amounts to a curse on the
hand (the seemingly wonderful gift/reward will turn on him if he
breaks his promise to remain loyal), the punishment, gruesome though
it is, makes sense. Still, I had expected something different, maybe
Wormtail showing his Gryffindor colors at last by killing Fenrir
Greyback with that silver hand before dying repentant. I guess JKR is
more ruthless than I am!
> 
> 10) Do you think, when Peter let Harry go, he experienced a sincere
regret for his past actions? Why or why not?

Carol responds:
I doubt that he had time for anything more than an impulse, the
remembrance of that moment when Harry had spared his life, which was
enough to make him release his grip--and trigger the evil spell that
made his most prized possession the instrument of his own death. (I
keep thinking of the Trojan Horse, only the hand remained dormant,
harmless to Wormtail, until his own "disloyalty" triggered it.)
> 
> 11) Why do you think Griphook lied to Bella?

Carol responds:
Because the Snatchers had abused him and killed his friend Gornuk, and
she was more evil and powerful and they were (he'd heard her torturing
Hermione). He could see what the time spent in the Malfoys' hidden
room had done to Ollivander. His only chance was to ally himself, at
least temporarily, with his fellow prisoners. (Earlier, he had laughed
at the supposed trick played on Snape, whom he thought to be a DE
duped by the fake Sword of Gryffindor. Why not play the same game
again in reverse, this time for higher stakes?)
> 
> 12) What did you think was going on with Voldemort in this chapter?
What ideas did you have concerning the identity of the old man in the
tower?

Carol responds:

By this time, we knew that the merry-faced boy who had stolen the
Elder Wand was Grindelwald. The old man could only be that same boy
grown old, imprisoned in his own Nurmengard since 1945 when he was
defeated by Dumbledore. I found myself liking and respecting that old
man, forgiving him for his atrocities because he so bravely faced (and
insulted) the upstart Voldemort, so obviously his inferior in lore and
intelligence. Yes, I know that he did horrible things, based on
mistaken beliefs and extreme ambition, but he never made a Horcrux and
he didn't fear death. Altogether, he seems a much more complex villain
than Voldemort, much more human and much more tragic. What a waste of
a brilliant mind and charming personality that, with direction, could
have been turned to good. I understand why Dumbledore was drawn to him
and reluctant to kill him even when he presented a terrible danger to
Europe and, if DD didn't stop him, to England itself. (Personally, I
think he was a much greater Dark Wizard than the self-obsessed minor
terrorist Voldemort ever was.)
> 
> 13) Can someone explain to me why Dobby's death is the one death in
this book that originally did, and still does, move me to tears, even
though I always found him annoying? 

Carol:
Um, I don't think that anyone but you can answer that! I'll admit,
though, that I also found him annoying and I also was moved to tears
by his death, even on a first reading when I mainly wanted to hurry
through, find out what happened, and get some sleep! Maybe it's
because, for once, Dobby is risking his own life rather than Harry's
(all the difference in the world between this rescue and, say, hexing
a Bludger to knock Harry off his broom to get him sent home). Maybe
it's because he so bravely entered the home of his former masters and
defied them, only to be killed by Bellatrix's silver knife. (What does
JKR have against silver, I wonder?) Maybe it's Harry's very human
reaction, wanting to dig the grave by hand to work off his grief
through Muggle-style work. Maybe it's Luna's few fitting words of
gratitude. I just don't know. All his vaunted freedom got him was
death in the service of wizards at the hands of a witch. A sad irony,
I suppose.

Carol, looking forward to reading everyone else's responses to Zara's
thought-provoking questions




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jun 30 22:41:23 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:41:23 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH 23, Malfoy Manor
In-Reply-To: <g4a3bd+dnti@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g4bnej+ffll@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183529

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "doddiemoemoe" <doddiemoemoe at ...> wrote:
>
> Discussion Questions:
> 1) What did you think of Harry's story, that he is a Slytherin
> named Vernon Dudley whose father works at the Ministry?
> 
> Doddie here:
> 
> Probably one of the most lame/brilliant things Harry has done..
> 
> 1.  I'm quite sure that most ww folks know about the Dursley's by 
> now...Harry got lucky by being captured by those who were on the 
> fringes of WW society anyhow..

Geoff:
I woudl disagree with you over this. 

Harry does not use the name Dursley - only Vernon and Dudley. 
Now, if the wizarding world is familiar with the name Dursley - and I 
entertain serious doubts about that - I think that the possibility of them 
also knowing the Christian names of both the Dursley males is equally 
unlikely. Vernon Dudley could be anyone and, as one of his captors points 
out, there may well be a Dudley in the Ministry. Dursley just doesn't 
come into it.

So I don't think that Harry adds to any danger he is in but using that name.




From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 30 23:39:04 2008
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:39:04 -0000
Subject: 23, Malfoy Manor
Message-ID: <g4bqqo+scs1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 183530

Discussion Questions:
1) What did you think of Harry's story, that he is a Slytherin 
named Vernon Dudley whose father works at the Ministry?

Jack-A-Roe:
I thought that they all should have come up with fake names before 
that just in case they were caught. But at least he was thinking on 
his fee.



2) Greyback takes the party to Malfoy Manor rather than 
summoning Voldemort himself. Harry surmises this is because Greyback 
is not a marked Death Eater. What do you think? 

Jack-A-Roe:
I thought Harry was correct. There is no way that Voldemort would 
have ever marked a werewolf. I don't think that Voldemort thinks of 
them as anything but "cannon fodder."



3) Narcissa Malfoy seems to have some authority: Greyback and 
his men defer to her, and she decides to let them in. What is her 
status, do you think? Which events of this chapter helped to form 
that opinion?

Jack-A-Roe:
Narcissa is acting exactly how they expect her to act as the mistress 
of the mansion. I doubt they know that Lucius is held in such low 
regard. The fact that she is also the sister of Bella probably 
doesn't hurt.


4) What did you think of Draco in the scene where he is asked to 
identify Harry?

Jack-A-Roe
I thought he still didn't have much of a spine. He knows he isn't cut 
out for the DE's, but he isn't able/willing to stand up to them. 
Giving a non answer is his best bet at surviving....a very slytherin 
trait.

5) Lucius, Bella, and Greyback all argue over who should get 
what credit for the capture. What does each hope to gain?

Jack-A-Roe:
They hope that it will improve their standing with Voldemort.


6) Did you learn anything knew about/form any new opinions of 
Bellatrix in this chapter?

Jack-A-Roe:
That she wasn't completely insane. She realized if the got the sword 
from her vault, they could have also gotten the cup and is petrified 
to find out that they did.


7) What did you think prompted Bella's extreme fear when she 
believed the Sword of Gryffindor was stolen from her vault?

Jack-A-Roe:
She knew she had something important from Voldemort and was petrified 
that it might have been stolen.


8) What did you think was the explanation for Dumbledore's eye 
in the broken mirror?

Jack-A-Roe:
That had me confused. Was Dumbledore going to do a Gandalf and appear 
from what we thought was his death? Was his death faked? I also 
couldn't remember the color of Sirius' eyes, and could it possibly be 
him.


9) "May your loyalty never waver again", Voldemort said to Peter 
after giving him the silver hand in GoF. Now we know what he meant. 
What did you think of Peter's death? Did you like or dislike the way 
it ended his story? Do you see any special meaning in it?

Jack-A-Roe:
I liked the way it turned out, it was better than I had imagined it 
would be. Loyalty wasn't one of Peter's strong suits and Voldemort 
knew this. Having him die for his lack of loyalty was a fitting end 
to the person who turned over his best friends for death.


10) Do you think, when Peter let Harry go, he experienced a 
sincere regret for his past actions? Why or why not?

Jack-A-Roe:
No, I don't think he regretted his past actions for a minute. He had 
over a decade to make a run for it. He could of crawled onto a ship 
and left Britain for ever. Instead he waited for Voldemort.


11) Why do you think Griphook lied to Bella?

Jack-A-Roe:
He wasn't going to survive for long any ways, why help them out? I 
think it also tickled his fancy to lie to wizards about the goblin 
made (and in his mind goblin owned) sword.


12) What did you think was going on with Voldemort in this 
chapter? What ideas did you have concerning the identity of the old 
man in the tower?

Jack-A-Roe:
I had no doubts as to who the old man was. Voldemort frenzy was still 
building at this point. I don't believe he was thinking as clearly as 
he could have been.


13) Can someone explain to me why Dobby's death is the one death 
in this book that originally did, and still does, move me to tears, 
even though I always found him annoying? 

Jack-A-Roe:
To me, Dobby represented innocence. All he wanted was to be free of 
the Malfoy's and to be able to work. Helping Harry out was probably a 
dream of his. He was childlike in his simplicity.

His death seemed to be the death of innocence. It's effect on Harry 
was devastating and was the kick in the rear that Harry needed to try 
and finish his quest.

Jack-A-Roe